Lens, Camera or me?

I am a hobbyist. For many years I took incredible pictures with a Kodak Z612. Yes, it has a Schneider-Kreuznach lens, and I can adjust almost every setting on it known to DSLRs, but it's mostly a point and shoot. I decided to try a Canon T2i several years back. I only have the two lenses that came with it, an EFS 18-55 IS and an EFS 55-250 IS. I take mostly outdoor landscape shots. Many of the pictures have no depth. They are not always sharp, not like the Kodak pictures. People in the pictures don't pop out from the background. I can't catch a decent bird shot, even with shutter at 1/1000 and aperture at f8. Flowing water pictures don't have that misty quality. Since I know I am capable of taking those kinds of pictures, I'm trying to figure out if it's the lens, and if so what lens (or lenses) should I look into; if it is the camera (am I expecting too much from a consumer grade camera?); or if it is just me and the camera together that don't work. The weight isn't a problem, I know how adjust my settings for the situation, I only use the viewfinder, in burst mode I can usually get one photo that looks decent (out of 10), and sometimes the planets align correctly and I just get a great shot, but I'm not used to burning through 200 pictures to get 20 decent ones.

I know this is way too generic a question, but does anyone have any suggestions as to where I should start to figure out what is wrong with my picture taking ability and this camera?

Are you post-processing the pictures from the T2i? That can make or break a photo, shooting digital (as well as with film).

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16738053
I am a hobbyist. For many years I took incredible pictures with a Kodak Z612. Yes, it has a Schneider-Kreuznach lens, and I can adjust almost every setting on it known to DSLRs, but it's mostly a point and shoot. I decided to try a Canon T2i several years back. I only have the two lenses that came with it, an EFS 18-55 IS and an EFS 55-250 IS. I take mostly outdoor landscape shots. Many of the pictures have no depth. They are not always sharp, not like the Kodak pictures. People in the pictures don't pop out from the background. I can't catch a decent bird shot, even with shutter at 1/1000 and aperture at f8. Flowing water pictures don't have that misty quality. Since I know I am capable of taking those kinds of pictures, I'm trying to figure out if it's the lens, and if so what lens (or lenses) should I look into; if it is the camera (am I expecting too much from a consumer grade camera?); or if it is just me and the camera together that don't work. The weight isn't a problem, I know how adjust my settings for the situation, I only use the viewfinder, in burst mode I can usually get one photo that looks decent (out of 10), and sometimes the planets align correctly and I just get a great shot, but I'm not used to burning through 200 pictures to get 20 decent ones.

I know this is way too generic a question, but does anyone have any suggestions as to where I should start to figure out what is wrong with my picture taking ability and this camera?

Not knowing your budget I suggest upgrading to Full frame (Since going FF I hardly touch my 60D which is alittle more advanced than your T2i).. Get the 6D and get a good lens like the 24-70 F4 of F2.8 if there is still money in the bag.. ? otherwise start with a 50mm 1.4

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16738053
I am a hobbyist. For many years I took incredible pictures with a Kodak Z612. Yes, it has a Schneider-Kreuznach lens, and I can adjust almost every setting on it known to DSLRs, but it's mostly a point and shoot. I decided to try a Canon T2i several years back. I only have the two lenses that came with it, an EFS 18-55 IS and an EFS 55-250 IS. I take mostly outdoor landscape shots. Many of the pictures have no depth. They are not always sharp, not like the Kodak pictures. People in the pictures don't pop out from the background. I can't catch a decent bird shot, even with shutter at 1/1000 and aperture at f8. Flowing water pictures don't have that misty quality. Since I know I am capable of taking those kinds of pictures, I'm trying to figure out if it's the lens, and if so what lens (or lenses) should I look into; if it is the camera (am I expecting too much from a consumer grade camera?); or if it is just me and the camera together that don't work. The weight isn't a problem, I know how adjust my settings for the situation, I only use the viewfinder, in burst mode I can usually get one photo that looks decent (out of 10), and sometimes the planets align correctly and I just get a great shot, but I'm not used to burning through 200 pictures to get 20 decent ones.

I know this is way too generic a question, but does anyone have any suggestions as to where I should start to figure out what is wrong with my picture taking ability and this camera?

There's nothing wrong with your lens or camera. You're not the first person to discover that DSLR's don't work exactly like consumer-grade compact point and shoot cameras.

Among other things, point-and-shoots have a reputation of over sharpening images.

You'll also learn that DSLR images may require more post-processing than point-and-shoot images.

Bird shots may require a longer lens or the ability and patience to stalk your subject until they're in frame-filling range.

Getting "people to pop out from the background" can require anything from a specific aperture to limit depth of field to control of lighting.

A "misty quality" for flowing water images may require a slow shutter speed.

You face several more years' learning how to get the best out of your equipment. With DSLR's technique is more important than equipment, and post-processing can be more important than technique. All this can be learned, but that takes time.

Post some photos.

I have done some post processing, and have managed to get some good pictures out of the original raw photos, but I never had to post process any of the old Kodak photos. It just took clear pictures. Sharp around the edges of flowers, soft focus in the background, perfect freeze just as the ATV hits air. I can't get those shots with the T2i, and I don't know why.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16738075
I have done some post processing, and have managed to get some good pictures out of the original raw photos, but I never had to post process any of the old Kodak photos. It just took clear pictures. Sharp around the edges of flowers, soft focus in the background, perfect freeze just as the ATV hits air. I can't get those shots with the T2i, and I don't know why.

http://www.amazon.com …ds=understandin​g+exposure

Buy this book. Read it. It will answer all your questions.
Also, if you have a UV filter on your lens, take it off.

Beyond that, without seeing an image with full exif in tact it's going to be hard to say what your issues may be.

Out of curiosity, are you comparing 100% views of the images? I ask because you're comparing a 6.1mp compact with an 18mp APS-C sensor. 6mp are going be a lot more forgiving.

Had exactly the same problem when i started using a DSLR. I expected the images to blow away the point and shoot cameras. But they simply didnt. I knew what good image quality is since i bought my 135L. Honestly, the 18-55 kit lenses are a real waste for the money IMHO

Please post some photos with EXIF intact. Without these we are just guessing as to the nature of your problem.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16738053
People in the pictures don't pop out from the background.

This is a specific case where technique makes all the difference with a DSLR.

Examples:

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16738070
Not knowing your budget I suggest upgrading to Full frame (Since going FF I hardly touch my 60D which is alittle more advanced than your T2i).. Get the 6D and get a good lens like the 24-70 F4 of F2.8 if there is still money in the bag.. ? otherwise start with a 50mm 1.4

No.

OP is not in need of FF, he is in need of learning how to use his current camera.

Read "Understanding Exposure" as suggested above for a start, and learn to PP. That will make a massive difference in your shots.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16738053
I'm not used to burning through 200 pictures to get 20 decent ones.

Really? I'd be happy with that keeper rate.

cdifoto wrote in post #16738165
Really? I'd be happy with that keeper rate.

Yeah, exactly, sounds like a good keeper rate to me.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16738053
I am a hobbyist. For many years I took incredible pictures with a Kodak Z612. Yes, it has a Schneider-Kreuznach lens, and I can adjust almost every setting on it known to DSLRs, but it's mostly a point and shoot. I decided to try a Canon T2i several years back. I only have the two lenses that came with it, an EFS 18-55 IS and an EFS 55-250 IS. I take mostly outdoor landscape shots. Many of the pictures have no depth. They are not always sharp, not like the Kodak pictures. People in the pictures don't pop out from the background. I can't catch a decent bird shot, even with shutter at 1/1000 and aperture at f8. Flowing water pictures don't have that misty quality. Since I know I am capable of taking those kinds of pictures, I'm trying to figure out if it's the lens, and if so what lens (or lenses) should I look into; if it is the camera (am I expecting too much from a consumer grade camera?); or if it is just me and the camera together that don't work. The weight isn't a problem, I know how adjust my settings for the situation, I only use the viewfinder, in burst mode I can usually get one photo that looks decent (out of 10), and sometimes the planets align correctly and I just get a great shot, but I'm not used to burning through 200 pictures to get 20 decent ones.

I know this is way too generic a question, but does anyone have any suggestions as to where I should start to figure out what is wrong with my picture taking ability and this camera?

Heya,

It's you.

Look at the 18-55 archive thread. People work magic with that lens. It's perfectly capable. And the T2i is perfectly capable.

You simply need to learn to use your tools.

Very best,