Looking for image quality boost - upgrade from/ for XSI

[brent_starks]

<p>So, headed to Bali in a bit and am considering an upgrade to my equipment.<br>

Currently have XSI, 10-22, and 28-135.<br>

I am considering either purchasing the 24-105l, or upgrading the body to either the 60D or 7D. My question is which upgrade will have the largest impact on image quality.<br>

Any help is appreciated.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>What specifically is it that your current equipment won't do?</p>

<p>The biggest "image quality boost" usually lies within your abilities to use your current gear to it's fullest extent!</p>

<p>Just off the top of my head, . . . I'd expect a good stable Tripod, yet one light enough to carry always on your trip will provide the most benefit!</p>

<p>Your XSi, 10-22, & 28-135 cover's a wide range of focal lengths which should be suitable for about any global travel.</p>

[matthijs]

What area of IQ?

 

Shallow depth of field?

 

Sharpness?

 

Colors and contrast?

 

Cropping capability / detail retention?

 

Either that 24-105 or a nice prime is my bet.

 

That said, improving the exposure and the postprocessing might give you the biggest leap.

 

What do you think is your weakest link?

 

(probably not the 450...)

 

I'll revisit to see if you could provide us with more info.

 

Matthijs.

[paddler4]

<p>You might be interested in this review: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml</p>

<p>Having upgraded from an XTi to a 50D some years ago, I would expect that you will not see a great increase in quality from upgrading the body. I upgraded more for the ergonomics. Better images are usually from these things, in this order: (1) your level of skill, (2) glass, (3) body.</p>

 

[crappystuffs]

<p>If you need to upgrade your equipment then I suggest you go for the lens upgrade. You'll notice the improvement right away both in prints and when pixel peeping on screen. :)<br>

I second James (Jim) Johnson suggestion for a good tripod and head, and suggest that you consider to equip yourself with a speedlite as well.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Normally, I would suggest a lens upgrade over the body. However, I was in exactly the same situation not all that long ago with my XSi-great snapshot/candids camera. I purchased the 24-105F4L, and am happy with that decision. However, I still wasn't satisfied with the IQ as it tended to have more noise in the shadow and sky areas than I cared for.</p>

<p>An upgrade to the 60D will get you the DigicIV processor, currently state of the art in Canon cropped bodies. While others might disagree, I noticed a substantial difference in my images as far as noise and clarity is concerned. (I shoot a lot of bird imagery, and cropping is a necessary evil).<br>

<br />I'd only consider the 7D if you plan to shoot a lot of action, or spending time around sand, and or water/ humidity. (I have this one as well, made the mistake of buying the 60D first on the recomendation of a Camera store salesman). It's weather sealed and designed with a bias towards sports/action photography.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>If you mainly print small--8x10 or 8x12--you will see little IQ improvement with a 60D/7D. The extra rez won't make much difference until you hit 12x18 and larger, and that would be at close viewing, say 10 inches. The lone exception is high ISO: the 60D/7D is cleaner above ISO 800.</p>

<p>The main upgrade benefit from the 60D/7D is a larger brighter VF (easier to compose), better AF array (all crosses), faster frame rate, more external controls (less menu surfing), video, more comfy grip and a better (tougher) body. The 7D does all the before mentioned one better than the 60D.</p>

<p>The IQ going from a 28-135 to a 24-105 is a small bump up but a big improvement in build quality. The 24-105 is critically sharp wide open and doesn't improve much stopped down. The 28-135 needs more stopping down. The L optic is also a lot more flare resistant and contrasty. To me the biggest diff was the ability to shoot into the sun or other bright lights without worrying about flare and ghosting. Of course L weather seals, solid feel and smooth zoom/focus are pluses.</p>

<p>With all this said, the biggest difference in large print quality would probably be most evident with a FF camera like a 5D2.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I firmly believe--and have proved it <em>to my own satisfaction</em>, mind, in printing ~13x19" (that's ~33x48cm in real measurements) and smaller--that once you get 8 MP and above, the differences in a print viewed at a 'normal' distance are negligible. Your camera is already ahead of that, and there are some very expensive new or nearly new cameras that still are in that neighborhood.<br>

A new camera is always nice, but maybe not one purchased immediately before a trip. Use equipment you already know and have under control. Always carry the manual along if you do go with a new camera, especially.</p>

[brent_starks]

<p>Thanks.<br>

Biggest issue for me is sharpness. I have taken a few too many photos with the 28-135 that are softer than I would prefer. Other issues dont bother me so much, but my eyes immediately look for that. It is the reason I went with the Canon 10-22, over the Tokina 11-16 2.8. The extra stop or so would have been really really nice, but I preferred the "crispness" of the 10-22 images. <br>

Goes without saying that the photographer is the most important piece of equipment you have, but I rented the 24-105 once and was floored by the sharpness of the photos. especially in comparison to the 28-135 and the kit lens. I am by no means a perfect or pro photographer. However, I have a pretty good understanding of what I am doing. This is kind of like the match of golf swing/ golf club. Ideal is for me to continue to improve my technique and have better equipment that aids me in reaching my goals at the same time. <br>

I have been thinking the lens was the better route for now. Would definitely like the more comfortable grip, the better focusing system, and the better ISO performance of a newer body, but those are not my priorities right now. Also thinking I may want to move to full frame at some point, as I understand that that will be the largest jump in IQ (hence I am not interested in any additional ef-s lenses). Will be a sad day though to have to give up the 10-22. However, with all the wedding planning and paying, not sure I want to plunk down for a FF body at this point. If I get the 24-105, I would expect to still have it whenever it is that I do purchase a new body.<br>

I have the 430EXii and a decent tripod as well.<br>

I do print a fair amount, mostly 8x12, but some 16x24 as well. Prints have been good generally, except at the higher ISO (to be expected). I Mostly print images taken with the 10-22 and the 50mm 1.8 (great little lens). Expect to print a bunch of the Bali photos. Will only be in Bali for 10 days. Want to take full advantage with no regrets or wishes I had "X" vs "Y" <br>

thanks, the advice is definitely appreciated.</p>

[brent_starks]

<p>I should also add that the 28-135 does a couple of things that really annoy me. <br>

1) I find the focus to be slow, relative to the other lenses I own and have rented.<br>

2) there is sometimes an annoying hitch (and audible noise) when the IS kicks in that, at least on my copy of the lens, prevents me from snapping a photo immediately. I have actually missed a couple of moments because of it.</p>

[george_prescott]

<p>Brent,<br>

I have the 24-105 and love it. Bought it a couple of years ago. Before that, I had the 20D with a kit, and also a 28-105. The 24-105 was definitely an improvement over both, especially the kit lens, which I really can't stand now. I have also upgraded my camera to a 7D, which I love, but you would probably get more bang for the buck with a lens upgrade. Also, cameras are always getting better and cheaper, so the longer you wait the more you'll get! By the way, how do you like the 10-22?</p>

<p>George</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>I should also add that the 28-135 does a couple of things that really annoy me. <br />1) I find the focus to be slow, relative to the other lenses I own and have rented.<br />2) there is sometimes an annoying hitch (and audible noise) when the IS kicks in that, at least on my copy of the lens, prevents me from snapping a photo immediately. I have actually missed a couple of moments because of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 28-135 focuses using a tiny rear element group and is pretty darn fast. I suspect the camera has difficulty controlling AF due to the slow aperture in low light (it needs more time to process). The actual AF is pretty peppy when the camera has enough light to process quickly. The 24-105 isn't much faster so not much gain there. </p>

<p>The IS mechanism in the 28-135 is old and is a bit slower to settle compared to the newest upper tier optics. However, all IS designs need to settle in to achieve the max stabilization. If you need to gun sling, turn IS off. And all of them are audible in a quiet room. The original 75-300 IS USM (1995) and EF 70-200 4L IS USM are the 2 loudest IS mechanisms I have heard. The 28-135 is a furt in ah hurricane compared to them.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I think the OP has answered his own question. If the lens bothers you, and you've used a potential replacement, and like it... then replace it instead of the body.</p>

<p>I don't know that I would expect a dramatic improvement in the AF performanc though... Puppy Face pointed out several reasons, but you tell us... did you see a dramatic improvement in AF w/ the 24-105? if so, that's the nail in the coffin of the 28-135. if not... well, upgrading to an xxD+ WILL improve even the 28-135s AF perf.</p>

[brent_starks]

<p>Hmmm. I would say that I saw a dramatic improvement in the AF performance in the sense that I was not aware of it working in the same way I have been with the 28-135. <br>

Re: IS. I would be fine if it wasnt for the accompanying lag. In my experience, that lag has not been present with either the kit lens, or the 24-105. <br>

Re: 10-22. That lens is phenomenal. Will be in my bag as long as I have a body that it fits. Shot many of my favorite photos with that lens. At 10mm, the perspective is HUGE. Big skies, grand landscapes. And the 10mm focus allows you to get right on top of subjects in the forefront. <br>

Incredibly sharp for a UWA. I compared it to all competing third party lenses and decided that it was worth the extra couple of hundred bucks. Havent regretted it for one second. If anything ever happened to that lens I would replace it immediately. That is how much I like it. Highly recommended.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>If you are going to be photographing moving things, birds, sports airshows etc. the 7D is a great camera with a faster frame rate.<br>

Jim</p>