Need some help (upgrade related)!

I know that wanting to upgrade and affording to ugprade a body is one's personal choice, but I have been thinking about this for the past 5 days and I need some help. I got into photography long ago and I finally got serious about it when my wife and I had our first child last July. I had bought an XTi in 11/2006 and it has been a great camera. Along the way I have also learned that if I wanted to take great pictures I need to have great glass so I worked on my lens collection over the past 6 months. I now have what I think is all I need in terms of glass for taking portraits and candid everyday shots. I like the pictures from my XTi, but I have noticed that they could be "better." I see all the pictures from 30D's, 40D's, and 5D's and I wonder if I upgraded my body would I get that IQ I am looking for or was what I am seeing from these other bodies just a result of PP?

Well near the end of last week my wife said, "Since you are getting serious with photography, would you like to upgrade your camera?" I have longed after a 5D since I perfer to do low/ambient light photography. Well, to make a long story short, I have a buyer lined up for my XTi and I have some other things I can sell to come up with a total of $1400. If I were to get another camera (i.e. 5D) then we as a family would be out the cost to do so. My delimma is would I really benefit from upgrading from the XTi or will the IQ all be the same? And is the jump to a 5D worth it for my style of shooting or would I be better off with a 40D or just sticking with my XTi?

Money is not a big issue, but possibly needing to come up with $600-$900 for a new camera just for my hobby doesn't sit too easy with me. I have already taken on one client to do some baby photos and I have some others lined up as well as taking pictures of my own family and extended family so I could eventually end up making a little money from this. I am in no way a professional, but I do like to think I take great pictures and this is something I want to stick with for a long while. Any helpful advice would be appreciated as am undecided on what to do! I know the easy answer is to just upgrade if you have the $$, but would there be an actual benefit from it.

Hmmm... I have all three cameras, the 5D, the 40D, and the XTi. They all have their uses, their strengths and weaknesses. If you looking to upgrade because you seek better IQ, the 5D is the only option. The IQ between the 40 and XTi is so small that even pixel peeping it's going to be difficult to notice and the difference in IQ between the 5D and other bodies is not all that much as well. If your looking for noise control, the 5D IMHO is still the best but the 40D is awful close and the XTi not all that far behind either. A new body is not going to give you a large bump in IQ especially if you not shooting ISO3200 all the time.

Now features is where it's at. All three have very different feature sets. Of the three bodies, the 40D is the clear feature winner as it's chocked full of them. List out the features your really interested in and start checking them off. Need live view, one option, need sensor cleaning, two options, need full frame, again one option. Make a list and weigh our each.

One more option, next week is the big photo show. There are rumors of a new Canon body being introduced. Maybe a 5D replacement, maybe a XTi replacement, we'll find out next week. You might want to hold off until then. If it is a 5D replacement, prices of 5Ds are going to be coming down.

I generally try to shoot at ISO 200, but that is only because the noise on my XTi get bad once I try to exceed 400. 400 is okay, but it isn't as clear as 200, and with the low light 100 just can't be used. I would like to use a higher ISO if the noise can be controlled. I know there isn't much of a difference between an XTi and a 40D, but it was worth throwing it into the mix. I don't care for live view and I do enjoy the auto sensor cleaning, however I can always learn to clean it myself if needed. I thought about waiting until next week, but I am afraid that if I wait too long then the price I could possibly get for my XTi will go down even more meaning that I will be out that much more. I had even contemplated a 30D, but I didn't know if the IQ would be that much different from my XTi and between a 30D and a 40D I would almost rather go for the newer version. Again, any advice is much appreciated as I don't want to be out the extra $$ if there is no benefit.

Hmm.. noise on the XTi should not really be that bad at 400 or 800 and even at 1600 it's manageable. Have you tried to tried using the technique "expose to the right"? By pushing the exposure a bit overexposed and bring it back in PP, noise is much less of a problem than when underexposing. Take a look at this page:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/expose-right.shtml

You are doing one of two things.
1. You might simply be pixel peeping the noise too much and overestimating it. Have you printed anything around 8x12 at the higher ISO to see what the noise really looks like? At what magnification are you looking at the noise on screen? I once owned an XT and I found the noise controllable up to 800. 1600 was objectionable in large prints even exposing to the right. The 30D is fine to 1600 and I find the 5D is fine to 3200 if I manage the exposure.
2. Or the noise might really be bad which means you are underexposing. If this is the case you will get a ton more improvement from learning to manage the exposure than from getting another body. My 5D will generate a lot of noise at ISO1600 if I underexpose the shot and push it.

As far as bodies go:
30D / 40D / 5D all have really nice handling compared to the Rebels. Once you get the two dials it is hard to go back.

The 30D and 40D will not deliver noticeably better IQ than the XTi. The 5D maybe....but this will not be revolutionary.

I do think the lenses you have would be nicer on the 5D, but it will shift portrait work from your 24-70 to the 70-200 and 85. The 85 is (to me) nearly a perfect portrait length on the larger sensor. Meanwhile your 24-70 gains having an actual wide angle FOV.

In order:
Work on controlling noise through controlling exposure.
Consider a 40D if you shoot long or fast sports
Consider a 5D if not

And realize that neither body is going to be revolutionary for IQ.

Thanks gjl711 that was some good reading. I will definately take it to heart and look more closely at what I am doing next time.

JefferyG - I appreciate the input as I want to use ISO 800-1600 more. I find that most of the time that I need to go this high is because I am in a poorly lit room. I like to use natural/ambient light and hand hold all my pictures. I will say I am not perfect when it comes to always nailing exposure, but I do seem to get it 75-80% of the time. You brought up some good points as to how my lenses will be affected by going to a 5D rather than sticking with crop. I love all my lenses and I anticipated the way they would change once I lost the crop factor, but I like the close focusing of my primes at their current crop on my XTi which would leave me leaning towards a 40D. I didn't know if the IQ would be that much different between all of them, but it just seems that the pictures I see produced from a 30D, 40D, and 5D just look more 'clear' than what I am getting using good glass.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I generally "pixel peep" at 100%. I have also printed up to a 10x13 with outstanding results too.

I think I may need to check back in to reality and realize that my XTi is good, but I may be needing the ergonomics (and other features) of the XXD bodies in addition to working on exposure. Thanks again for the comments and please feel free to post more.

Heck, go the whole way. Get a 1 series!

I wish my wife would ax me if I want to upgrade! Can you get your wife to talk to mine.

She already aplogized for asking if I wanted to upgrade as I had focused on nothing else but that since. I actually realized that since I am not getting paid for my work (not yet anyway), then I would probably be better off with a 40D and wait for a future version of a 5D when I get paying clients. Hopefully, my new 40D should be here tomorrow!!

I mean no disrespect, but with the exception of the 18-55, you have excellent equipment capable of taking superb images. May I suggest that you spend some time, not some money, and hone your skills a bit more. Post images here for criticism, remembering that you learn most from negative comments! I'd be interested to see some of the ones you think could be "better" to try to determine if it's an equipment or technique issue.

If you do want to spend some money - if you are using the 18-55 as a walk-around because the 24-70 is too long/heavy - buy the 17-55/2.8; or consider a flash like the 430ex.

When printing at 4x6, ISO 1600 pictures look great. But I am sick like you and like to pixel peep at 100%. Luckily there is a simple solution for indoor pictures of kids. Get an external flash and bounce off the ceiling or wall.

xarqi - I appreciate your comments. I have posted some pics, but so far I don't think the comments I have recieved on those are too constructive (although much appreciated). Here is a link to some pics so you can see a few of the pictures that demonstrate the issue I am having. It seems that the pictures just aren't as "crisp" and clear as they should be.

http://bp3.blogger.com …7yFY/s1600-h/IMG_2549.JPG

http://bp2.blogger.com …XoX0/s1600-h/IMG_3550.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com …y4V4/s1600-h/IMG_3421.jpg

Sorry, but no EXIF is on the pics as it was stripped when my wife uploaded them to her blog. I do know that the two baby pics where shot with my 24-70, and the grandmother and baby was shot with my 70-200. All pictures were taken at 200 ISO and with manual focusing points set. Both pics had good light, but still seem just a tad soft in my eyes. I am positive I was using an aperature of 3.5 or smaller too because of the available light. It seems that if I don't have a plethora of light then the pics are just kinda soft.

Don't get me wrong, my XTi was a great camera and I have some wonderful pics from using it, but about 90% of those pics just weren't up to my standards. I am sure once they are printed they would look good, but on screen they were just so-so.

hulla - I appreciate your comments as well. I would like to get an external flash to help with my pics, but I am more of a natural/ambient light enthusiast. One of these days I will pic one up.

I wonder if...

Two of your images seem unacceptably soft. IMO, this is not a fault of your camera but, rather of your technique.... Very likely too slow of a shutter speed.

My XT and my 30D produce excellent results at ISO 400. I use ISO 400 all the time when I am shooting outdoors with very long lenses. There is no reason to think that the XTi would produce lesser results. A boost to ISO 400 or even 800 would give allow you the extra shutter speed you need but, still shooting available light can be tricky.

If you have a tripod or if you can get the use of one; I suggest that you try some images hand held and some at the same shutter speeds/f/stop with your camera mounted on a tripod. I would guess that the tripod mounted images might be a lot sharper. If they are, you have several choices or a combination of these choices to get sharper images:

1. Shoot at higher ISO
2. Use tripod
3. Use an IS equipped lens (the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a nice available light lens)
4. Use a lens with a faster aperture (50mm f/1.4 for example)
5. Practice to develop a steady hold

OR

6. Supplement the available light with flash. See: Planet Neil
http://planetneil.com …h-photography-techniques/
The intro to this great website reads:

"As photographers we’re always looking for perfect light.
And yet, the quality of available light isn’t always ideal. It is rarely perfect...
These pages were originally written to help other photographers who struggle with on-camera flash. But they were also written as a reaction against the snobbery of the purists who insist on using available light only - even when it looks terrible."

I thought about bumping the ISO, but at 400 is when a little of the grain/noise sets in and the two baby pictures were for a client and I couldn't risk messing those up. I have a tripod, cumbersome as it may be, and I may have to give it a try next time. I would think I could possibly benefit more from a monopod since I will be taking pictures of children and moving around to get the right compositions.

I thought about the IS and I do have the faster lenses, but I don't know if it would have helped with the same settings (IS probably would have).

jdharris wrote in post #4771459
xarqi - I appreciate your comments. I have posted some pics, but so far I don't think the comments I have recieved on those are too constructive (although much appreciated). Here is a link to some pics so you can see a few of the pictures that demonstrate the issue I am having. It seems that the pictures just aren't as "crisp" and clear as they should be.

http://bp3.blogger.com …7yFY/s1600-h/IMG_2549.JPG

http://bp2.blogger.com …XoX0/s1600-h/IMG_3550.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com …y4V4/s1600-h/IMG_3421.jpg

Sorry, but no EXIF is on the pics as it was stripped when my wife uploaded them to her blog. I do know that the two baby pics where shot with my 24-70, and the grandmother and baby was shot with my 70-200. All pictures were taken at 200 ISO and with manual focusing points set. Both pics had good light, but still seem just a tad soft in my eyes. I am positive I was using an aperature of 3.5 or smaller too because of the available light. It seems that if I don't have a plethora of light then the pics are just kinda soft.

Don't get me wrong, my XTi was a great camera and I have some wonderful pics from using it, but about 90% of those pics just weren't up to my standards. I am sure once they are printed they would look good, but on screen they were just so-so.

hulla - I appreciate your comments as well. I would like to get an external flash to help with my pics, but I am more of a natural/ambient light enthusiast. One of these days I will pic one up.

Actually you have some good equipment now. The 40d would also be a good addition. Your pics are ok. And I would offer the following.

The second pic needs a look at the composition. The wall hanging behind the baby looks like it is growing out of her head. I would lose the wall hanging. This is one of my biggest frustrations when taking on location kid pics which I do quite a bit. It is tough positioning children this age and keeping them where you want them with the expressions you want (they seem to cry at the worst times!). I can't tell you how many times I have gotten great expression, sharp image, great contrast, etc. only to have something in the background seeming to sprout out of their head. It takes patience and practice.

the third pic is the best of the bunch but could use a light on the hair. It would make the subject stand out. Bouncing a flash or a reflector would help.

Very good subjects. Cute children.

There are a number of publications that should be available at your local library that could be of help. Many of them are by Amherst Media. I went to them on recommendation of others on message boards. I consider myself still new to digital photography although not new to photography in general.

Keep working, you will only get better.

jdharris wrote in post #4771459
http://bp3.blogger.com …7yFY/s1600-h/IMG_2549.JPG

http://bp2.blogger.com …XoX0/s1600-h/IMG_3550.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com …y4V4/s1600-h/IMG_3421.jpg

Image one is soft because of camera shake. Images two and three have lost quality because of jpeg compression artifacts. If you want to enhance sharpness, adjust the settings in-camera or use photoshop. Also, using wider apertures reduces sharpness in many lenses, and depth of field in all lenses.

You won't get much sharper images from the 40d; much of it comes down to how you handle your camera and what you do with the picture file. I "can" make very crisp pictures with my Rebel XT and the right lighting, AND post processing helps too.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE