Lens, Camera or me?

davidfarina wrote in post #16738081
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

This brings to mind that I should just go out and rent a good quality lens for a weekend. If my pictures suddenly improve, I'll have my answer.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16739561
This brings to mind that I should just go out and rent a good quality lens for a weekend. If my pictures suddenly improve, I'll have my answer.

actually no.
Many (including myself) shoot in RAW format and process the picture using photoshop techniques including levels, curves, exposure, sharpening, etc.

but go ahead and rent an expensive lens and see what it does for you

Like Scatterbrained said, try adjusting your picture style settings. I have my 60D set on Faithful with +6 Sharpening +1 contrast and +1 saturation.

I use Lightroom and shoot in RAW now but those setting gave me a good starting point and I would tweak it from there with DPP.

To be fair, a better lens will *help* you to get better images, but your ability to make the most out of your equipment is what is really going to make any difference in your photos. Just because someone drops down $2200 for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens doesn't mean they can't still take poor quality photos. Yes, the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 are cheap lenses, and there are certainly better lenses out there. However, my advice to you is instead of spending money on better lenses initially, learn to use what you have. You can see if you really feel like it's worth your while to upgrade from basic hobbiest lenses. -Plus you have a wide focal range to work with, so if you do decide to upgrade your glass in time, you can see what focal lengths you're getting more use out of and find the upgrade that's best for you.

I got by with the 18-55 for some time, and it got me some results I was actually pretty happy with:

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/e9SKD​M

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/knic3​2

a better lens could help...but it's a whole lot easier to get a bad photo with a DSLR than it is with a point and shoot...

if you don't want to do any post processing, definitely look into adjusting the picture styles, you can get an entirely different output just from some tweaking in there

also, what focus mode were you using when you took the shot at the trees through the glass?

Ghostwheel,
Are you sure you aren't using some kind of filter on the lens? A "daylight" filter, protective filter, etc? The drastic loss of contrast, as seen in the tree photo you posted, is exactly what the use of a filter often does to an image. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed - I have not read the entire thread, line by line.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16739990
Ghostwheel,
Are you sure you aren't using some kind of filter on the lens? A "daylight" filter, protective filter, etc? The drastic loss of contrast, as seen in the tree photo you posted, is exactly what the use of a filter often does to an image. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed - I have not read the entire thread, line by line.

No, no filter. The colors are always washed out. Even cheating on Auto mode.

DreDaze wrote in post #16739877
a better lens could help...but it's a whole lot easier to get a bad photo with a DSLR than it is with a point and shoot...

if you don't want to do any post processing, definitely look into adjusting the picture styles, you can get an entirely different output just from some tweaking in there

also, what focus mode were you using when you took the shot at the trees through the glass?

Focus mode was auto in that picture, for both cameras. Image stabilization was on. I tried one on Manual focus, and somehow it focused on the rock in the front (which I don't understand since I wasn't looking at the rock when I focused).

Thank you to everyone who mentioned it, I'll look into the picture styles. If I can make any of those work, I can deconstruct the settings for future use.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16739538
...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. ...

Right; and the earlier comments were that the Kodak appears to be adding extra contrast (which is deepening the shadows, broadening the separation of your darker areas and lighter areas, etc) which adds to that "depth" you're feeling is missing.

So, you should go into the Picture Styles on your current body and tweak with those to see how those can align better to what you're used to.

I didn't see whether you are shooting in RAW or jpeg. If you're shooting in RAW, also shoot in Large Fine jpeg. Then compare the two images (the RAW and the jpeg), and see what the in-camera processing does. SVT_Wylde's setting are a good place to start. Then you can take your RAW into post, and see what you can achieve.

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16739561
This brings to mind that I should just go out and rent a good quality lens for a weekend. If my pictures suddenly improve, I'll have my answer.

Let me put it this way:

55-250, ~$200 lens:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​848167779/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/8​400901337/

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16739137
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

This one is the Z612.
Dimensions 2832x2128
Width 2832
Height 2128
Horizontal resolution 230
Vertical resolution 230
Bit depth 24
Resolution unit 2
Color representation sRGB
Camera maker EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Camera model KODAK Z612 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
F-stop f/4.8
Exposure time 1/200
ISO speed ISO-80
Exposure bias 0 step
Focal length 70mm
Max aperture 4.5
Metering mode Pattern
Subject distance
Flash mode No flash
Contrast Normal
Light source Unknown
Exposure program Aperture Priority
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
White balance Auto
Digital zoom 0
EXIF version 0221

I haven't taken the time to go through all of the comments, so forgive me if this has already been said. A couple of observations:

First and foremost, the sensor on your Kodak is tiny. Teeny tiny. So tiny that it's hard to *not* get a shot in focus. Your DSLR, on the other hand, has a much larger sensor which makes nailing focus that much more critical. In the above shots, pretty much everything is in focus in the Kodak pic - again, with a sensor that tiny, it's almost hyperfocal city all the time. In the DSLR shot, the glass and metal structure is in focus (relatively) whereas the branches in the distance clearly are not. Throw in different exposures between the two and voila.

WhyFi wrote in post #16740133
I haven't taken the time to go through all of the comments, so forgive me if this has already been said. A couple of observations:

First and foremost, the sensor on your Kodak is tiny. Teeny tiny. So tiny that it's hard to *not* get a shot in focus. Your DSLR, on the other hand, has a much larger sensor which makes nailing focus that much more critical. In the above shots, pretty much everything is in focus in the Kodak pic - again, with a sensor that tiny, it's almost hyperfocal city all the time. In the DSLR shot, the glass and metal structure is in focus (relatively) whereas the branches in the distance clearly are not. Throw in different exposures between the two and voila.

Not really sure I agree with this.

When I go to dofmaster, and use the T2i at 55mm f/5.6, guessing an approximate distance to the window at about 15 feet, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 12.9 ft
Far limit 17.9 ft
Total 4.94 ft

If I then choose the Kodak z730 (same size sensor as the z612 - 1/2.5in.), at 70mm f/4.5, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 14.7 ft
Far limit 15.3 ft
Total 0.66 ft

I liked your thought process, but I think it's incorrect. There are two things working against what you said - a wider FL on the T2i (increasing dof), and a larger f/stop (decreasing dof) on the Kodak.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16740157
If I then choose the Kodak z730 (same size sensor as the z612 - 1/2.5in.), at 70mm f/4.5, I get:
Depth of field
Near limit 14.7 ft
Far limit 15.3 ft
Total 0.66 ft

I liked your thought process, but I think it's incorrect. There are two things working against what you said - a wider FL on the T2i (increasing dof), and a larger f/stop (decreasing dof) on the Kodak.

You've got something wrong. The sensor in the Kodak is ~6mm x ~4mm. there's no way it's getting only 8" of focus 15' out.

Dude - you put in the equiv FL, not the actual. There's a ~6x crop factor - you should have put in 11.6, which would give you 54' of depth. When you get ridiculous numbers like the ones you posted, you probably should double check them before telling someone that they're incorrect.