I have a Canon EOS 4000D...

The Canon 4000D is an 18MG pixel camera. If you can't get a good picture out of that camera then maybe it's you and not the equipment. There use to be this photographer who use to post on some of the galleries in this Forum, his pictures were nothing sort of incredible ! The camera he used was a Canon EOS 30D with 8 MG pixels.

I forgot which lens he used, but it was nothing special. I'm not sure what lenses you have, but these days most lenses will render a decent image. The only reason you might want to upgrade is durability and extra features. The more expensive cameras can take a knock and keep on ticking, plus they have features that come in handy, but are not a necessity unless you are shooting Pro.

The Canon 4000D is an 18MG pixel camera. If you can't get a good picture out of that camera then maybe it's you and not the equipment. There use to be this photographer who use to post on some of the galleries in this Forum, his pictures were nothing sort of incredible ! The camera he used was a Canon EOS 30D with 8 MG pixels.

 

I forgot which lens he used, but it was nothing special. I'm not sure what lenses you have, but these days most lenses will render a decent image. The only reason you might want to upgrade is durability and extra features. The more expensive cameras can take a knock and keep on ticking, plus they have features that come in handy, but are not a necessity unless you are shooting Pro.

I agree it could be me but my biggest problem is when I'm zoomed in even with a tripod I can see fuzziness, it doesn't look as sharp as it should at least to me. I've tried everything so I thought maybe a lens change or camera could help. Also it's not that I think my pictures are bad. I dont think they're the best ever but I wouldn't consider them not good.

What Lens are you using?

. . . my biggest problem is when I'm zoomed in even with a tripod I can see fuzziness, it doesn't look as sharp as it should at least to me. . .

Notwithstanding the above request for more information: now you are beginning to define the problem which requires addressing.

Posting an example of one or two offending images, with EXIF data, should go a long way to reaping useful responses.

WW

Another voice to say that anything over 6 real, honest-to-goodness megapixels should produce excellent results well beyond 8x10" images.

There are many possible sources of 'fuzziness' - the most common causes are unsteadiness in the camera/user, or a lens that is damaged or out of 'spec', or misaligned somehow. Even the basic 'kit' lens is unlikely to be unsharp unless something is wrong inside or in practice.

However, a very common reason for the viewfinder appearing 'fuzzy' is that there is a small finder focus wheel to adjust for the variation in human vision on many Canons (I don't think that the very basic 4000D was imported into the US, so I don't know...). On some models the wheel may be covered by a rubber cushion on viewfinder window, so that may have to be removed to see the adjustment wheel. Try adjusting the wheel to see if the finder appears sharper, This wheel doesn't affect the image on the sensor, but it sure makes sharp seeing difficult if it has got off kilter.

I don't know the camera or lens but I read here that the 4000D kit lens was developed especially for the 4000D. To keep the cost down, it has no 'image stabilization (IS) that many other kit lenses have. Unlike Nikon, Canon's approach to IS is to put it in its lenses rather than in its cameras. So your kit lens is more prone to showing movement blur at slower shutter speeds.

Another factor to consider is that kit lenses tend to be sharpest around the middle of the aperture range. Say from about f/8 to about f/16. The lens may be less sharp at wider apertures.

What does this mean? My take is that his lens is more sensitive to "exposure triangle" settings than most. Your shutter speed has to be faster because you have no IS. But opening up the aperture to give you more shutter speed may result in less sharp images. So use ISO settings to strike the right balance between a high enough shutter speed and a (slightly) stopped down aperture.

In this hands-on review, the reviewer mentions that the Canon 4000D autofocus function is 'pretty basic'. So one thing to try out is manual focusing. See if that makes a difference. The review is worth reading because the reviewer goes into things like higher ISO settings to compensate for lack of IS. He also suggests a couple of alternative lenses with practical benefits.

If it was me, I'd try out different 'exposure triangle' settings and manual focusing first to see whether you can improve things. A better quality lens will probably will improve your photos. Unless it's the 'pretty basic' autofocus that's a major factor.

Phil, two more things occurred to me (on the way back from the supermarket :)) that might help you:

I don't really know what the reviewer meant by a 'pretty basic AF system" but I suspect he's referring to the 9 AF points on the 4000D. That's not that many these days. In (semi-)automatic modes, your camera looks at 9 points 'in the frame' and focuses on the one that is closest to what the AF-system thinks you want to have in sharpest focus. Usually the closest person or object to one of the 9 points. Which leaves a margin of focusing error.

I still use a Canon 6D, launched back in 2012, with 11 AF points. Only one of these - the center one - is "cross-type"(more accurate). The Canon 6D mk ii (2017) has 45 cross-type AF-points. Canon's new R6 camera has 6,072 AF points.

Does this matter? Yes and no. I tend to use 'spot focus' (center spot) for my AF 95% of the time rather than rely on my camera's ability to work out from a limited set of AF points what I want in sharper and less sharp focus. So this is something you could try out (if you haven't already done so). Does 'spot focusing'' - and recomposing with the same focus - increase the sharpness of what you're focusing on or not?

DoF comes into play in determining how sharp 'these 'visual field' will be in front of and behind the point on which you're focused.

Bottom line: my suggestion is to make sure that you're (skillfully) getting the very best out of your camera and kit lens first before buying new equipment. Then you'll know what your current equipment's limitations, why you want to upgrade, and to what. Yes, it's time-consuming and definitely not a quick fix. But learning to get the best out of a camera + lens is IMHO time well spent.

FWIW, I bought my 6D second-hand about 8 years ago. I've sometimes wondered whether I should 'upgrade' but it still does the job and its limited AF capabilities don't limit me in the least. It has a 20MB sensor - just slightly more than yours - and is more than enough for my purposes. I have over the years invested in two good-quality EF lenses. Given the choice, Just my humble opinion, but given the choice, I would prefer to invest in good EF lenses (which will serve multiple cameras equally well) rather than in the latest camera which will soon be replaced by the next.