Lens, Camera or me?

sjones wrote in post #16738172
Yeah, exactly, sounds like a good keeper rate to me.

Lol if i could get 20 keepers out of my 200 shots id be more than happy

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

Depends what you think is a keeper.

A lot of time, I tend to say I got 1 or 2 good pictures, but the person I shoot or my friends say, they are great, but not for me, I do think they are far fro great.

So I would say I have a keeper rate 10 of 100, but my friends would disagree, and say, its more like 50 of 100.

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?

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.

I agree with some of the others, look thru the lens archive section that will show other photos taken with your lens and camera. Getting "that pop out from the background" look requires certain settings and if you don't know this then reading books like Understanding Exposure will help.

I still keep my 55-250IS because it's small, light and sharp

Canon Rebel XSi/450D (older than your T2i !!
Canon 55-250IS

Its definitely not your equipment. A t2i is a very capable camera and can take amazing pictures, as amazing as any other camera out there.

What will improve your pictures the most in ranking of importance IMO.
1) Learn Photohop. I don't post even 1 picture without doing extensive touching on it.
2) Learn photography techniques and skills. And yes, this includes reading some books/articles. You can concentrate on books that are about what you photograph the most (say landscape or portraits)
3) Learn how to use the available lighting. Again, some reading is necessary for this.

DC Fan wrote in post #16738103
This is a specific case where technique makes all the difference with a DSLR.

Examples:

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 60D
Lens: 70-300mm
Image Date: 2012-03-16 12:33:17 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 300.0mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0025 s (1/400)
ISO equiv: 250
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 60D
Lens: 70-300mm
Image Date: 2012-03-16 12:03:50 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 200.0mm
Aperture: f/5.0
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

Long focal length, long distance to subject, long distance to background, largest possible aperture. That leads to a shallow depth of field that isolates subjects from background. The effect is even more pronounced with a faster lens.

Again, DSLR's don't work like point and shoot cameras. The above examples came from equipment that's comparable to your, but it was used in a fashion to isolate subjects from background as much as was possible under the situation available (greater subject isolation would have resulted from a f/2.8 lens).

As already mentioned, with DSLR's, it's not the equipment, it's how the equipment is used.

DC Fan, were these shots handheld or w/a tripod??

dRwOOD wrote in post #16738437
DC Fan, were these shots handheld or w/a tripod??

Handheld. Always.

First, thank you all for your advice. I appreciate the help. To start, here are a couple of the kinds of pictures I like to take:

Here is one comparison shot at the Biosphere. I set the cameras as close as I could get to the same settings, but the Kodak goes to ISO 80 and the Canon would not drop below f5.6 on Aperture Priority. I should have gone full manual, but we were walking with a group and that is often how I take pictures. I was focusing on the trees behind the glass. The first one is the T2i.
Dimensions 2760X 1874
Width 2760
Height 1875
Horizontal resolution 230
Vertical resolution 230
Bit depth 24
Resolution unit 2
Color representation sRGB
Camera maker Canon
Camera model Canon EOS REBEL T21
F-stop f/5.6
Exposure time 1/200
ISO speed ISO-100
Exposure bias 0 step
Focal length 55mm
Metering mode Pattern
Flash mode No flash
Exposure program Aperture Priority
White balance Auto
Digital zoom
EXIF version 0221

That looks like a difference in the in camera processing to me. The Kodak appears to be adding a fair bit more contrast and sharpening.

But hey thats like 2 klicks in lightroom to get it there?

You then should really consider learning some post processing

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16739169
That looks like a difference in the in camera processing to me. The Kodak appears to be adding a fair bit more contrast and sharpening.

If I understand you correctly, the Kodak is doing extra processing inside the camera, as it takes the picture, whereas the Canon does not and relies upon the user to tweak it afterwards. That makes sense, to a certain degree. Would that account for what I perceive as a better depth in the picture, as well?

davidfarina wrote in post #16739245
But hey thats like 2 klicks in lightroom to get it there?

You then should really consider learning some post processing

I'm not adverse to getting better at post processing. It's a creative process, too. I just miss being able to take a picture and send it to someone without the post processing. I am hoping to figure out how I can get a better picture to start with. Since it looks like the Kodak may have been fixing some of my errors behind the scenes, I may have to go back an adjust my expectations of how the settings will make the picture work, and reverse tweak what settings are needed for what situation.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16739255
If I understand you correctly, the Kodak is doing extra processing inside the camera, as it takes the picture, whereas the Canon does not and relies upon the user to tweak it afterwards. That makes sense, to a certain degree. Would that account for what I perceive as a better depth in the picture, as well?

Depth of field (how much of an image is in focus) is related to focal length, aperture, subject distance, and to some degree sensor size (sensor size effects the relationship between subject distance and focal length). The Kodak has a sensor that is much smaller than the Canon, allowing for much shorter focal lengths at a given distance, which will yield greater depth of field. It's most likely that the focal length reported in the Kodak exif is it's 35mm (full frame) equivalent, as I've seen several point and shoots that do that. In reality it's likely much shorter than 70mm.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16739278
I'm not adverse to getting better at post processing. It's a creative process, too. I just miss being able to take a picture and send it to someone without the post processing. I am hoping to figure out how I can get a better picture to start with. Since it looks like the Kodak may have been fixing some of my errors behind the scenes, I may have to go back an adjust my expectations of how the settings will make the picture work, and reverse tweak what settings are needed for what situation.

Play with the Picture Styles. You not only have different "scene" modes on the Canon that control how the camera shoots (aperture and shutter speed decisions), but you also have different picture styles to choose from. Picture styles tell the camera how to process the image. You'll likely have; Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, and Monochrome. You can start with these picture styles as a base and modify them by adjusting how much contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc. is applied to the image as well.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16739288
Depth of field (how much of an image is in focus) is related to focal length, aperture, subject distance, and to some degree sensor size (sensor size effects the relationship between subject distance and focal length). The Kodak has a sensor that is much smaller than the Canon, allowing for much shorter focal lengths at a given distance, which will yield greater depth of field. It's most likely that the focal length reported in the Kodak exif is it's 35mm (full frame) equivalent, as I've seen several point and shoots that do that. In reality it's likely much shorter than 70mm.

I must not be using the right term. When I say "depth", I don't mean how much of the picture is in focus. I mean how 3d the 2d image looks to me, and this can happen with a picture that has only part of the image in focus. It's probably partially the angle of the lighting, partially the contrast, partially the color saturation, etc. I don't like my pictures to look "flat". Obviously the Kodak does something behind the scenes that gives me more of the qualities I like, I just have to figure out how to get (or IF I can get) those with my initial settings on the Canon.