Lens, Camera or me?

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16742742
He swapped it for me. (He knows how to make the customer who is probably going to come buy another lens soon happy). He said that camera bodies and lenses have a "specification" level for acceptable, just like most other consumer goods. If a lens is off by the far end of acceptable specifications, and a camera body is off the other direction to the far end of specifications, they won't always play nice together (yes, he said that). He even said that sometimes people check several lenses on their cameras before they buy one to find the one that "works best". Occasionally, a new camera body won't work well (or at all) with those hand picked lenses because the original camera was at the far end of specification tolerance and the lenses were picked to go with that camera. (doesn't happen often but does happen). He thinks I just happened to get the two opposite far ends of the specification limits(or the lens was possibly out of tolerance), and probably won't have any trouble if I choose to buy other lenses, but he'd recommend coming to him and testing them on my camera before buying.

Stick with that shop, the guy has read lensrentals article and/or knows his stuff, and that is hard to find in a camera salesman these days.

snerd wrote in post #16742792
If you're shooting raw, I don't think style settings matter a twit.

They don't but the OP is shooting in jpeg.

O.P. Glad you got your problem sorted out! The kit lens is a great lens for the money end will serve you well. If you decide to upgrade in the future and you like the 18-55mm range, I suggest the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 Its been glued to my camera since I bought it.

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?

Like what the rest said, better glass is really something else(often pricier). Although im not that good at taking pictures yet, i can say i am more comfy using my 50mm 1.4 rather than my friend's 18-55 kit lens(which i just recently borrowed). Having f/1.4 makes your subjects pop out(did i forget to mention its a prime lens too?). I have the same camera as yours too, and i was also thinking that maybe getting a FF or a newer version could make my photos better. But as i browse POTN, i see great photos taken by cameras way older than mine.

try getting a 50mm 1.4, i'm sure u wont regret it!

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

Me too!

i wonder if the old lens had a filter on it...

DreDaze wrote in post #16743168
i wonder if the old lens had a filter on it...

Ghostwheel00 wrote in post #16740028
No, no filter.

It sounds like the camera and the lens were just at the opposite ends of the factory tolerances. I have been lucky with my 60D and haven't had any problems with any of my lenses.

azucarrera wrote in post #16743007
Like what the rest said, better glass is really something else(often pricier). Although im not that good at taking pictures yet, i can say i am more comfy using my 50mm 1.4 rather than my friend's 18-55 kit lens(which i just recently borrowed). Having f/1.4 makes your subjects pop out(did i forget to mention its a prime lens too?). I have the same camera as yours too, and i was also thinking that maybe getting a FF or a newer version could make my photos better. But as i browse POTN, i see great photos taken by cameras way older than mine.

try getting a 50mm 1.4, i'm sure u wont regret it!

Good to know, that one was first on my list to buy.

I also discovered AWB is not always accurate, so that fixed more of my color problems. Now that I know where some of my errors were, I'm doing much better. All I want is to be able to take RAW when I have the time to adjust settings and pictures, but still be able to grab one like this one quickly and have the colors right and the picture fairly sharp. My daughter wrapped this for a friend's birthday and was running out the door (there are Nacho Cheese Doritos inside the big box). It's not art, but it's something I want to keep and I didn't have time for fancy fixin's. The color is perfect. Sharpness, not so much, but that was definitely user error on this one.

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?

Those lenses are generally very good for the price. Stepping up to a more expensive lens will not fix the issues you are having.
When I started reading the thread, I was convinced what you were experiencing was a sloppy lens. I expected to see poor focus issues. On occasion, some of those lenses, have fairly sketchy construction in that the barrel flops around significantly inside the lens' chassis. It's ok in auto focus, but if you have to manually dial in a shot, it can be real hit or miss. It's rare to have one that bad, but I had one that came with mine, and it was impossible to work with. I took it back, got a replacement, and it's far better.That's about the only issue that you can feasibly blame on the lens as far as image quality.
Looking at your shots though, it's just learning to work with the camera's processing.

As far as "extra processing" goes from brand to brand, yes and no.
Some cameras including Nikon, will often produce more vivid shots, which on the surface sounds like the better camera, but in reality, that's not always the case. It's more the factory programming/calibratio​n. Everyone wants vivid, clear shots of course, but sometimes the more accurate representation of the actual shot is in fact more washed out in a given scenario. That's where learning, going deeper and adjusting your camera's settings, such as the white balance come into play.

Between that and post processing, and taking lots of shots in the field, you'll be up to speed soon enough.

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?

read these two articles before dropping money on a new lens
http://digital-photography-school.com …-is-better-than-you-think
http://blog.zhangjingn​a.com …ere-money-comes-from.html

Glad it's all sorted for you. There's still some great advice in here regarding PP etc though so keep pressing forward with your hobby

And seriously, you guys happy with a keeper rate of 20 from 200!! I can't remember the last time I took '200' photos while out with the camera!! Maybe I'm just not as trigger happy as a lot of people