Camera body getting the most out of my lenses?

[tom_lacey]

<p>Hi all -- i have a quick question..</p>

<p>i have a canon EOS 450D (Digital Rebel XSi)<br>

<br>

The lenses i have are as follows:</p>

<p>* canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM<br>

* canon ef 70-200mm f/4 L usm<br>

* sigma 10-20mm f/4<br>

<br>

Am i getting the most out of these lenses with the current body? I realise technique , practice etc etc are probably more important that any body i put on the lenses, but for an amateur looking to improve would you recommend upgrading to another body (would be second hand too like the lenses!). Is there a big advantage to be had regarding picture quality with an upgrade?<br>

<br>

many thanks!<br>

<br>

</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I realise technique , practice etc etc are probably more important that any body</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! And it's equally important how you use/display your photos. If you never make large prints or display a photo at its full resolution, you might have all the resolution you need anyway.</p>

<p>That said, there's a quick way to know whether your camera body is a limiting factor for resolution -- or whether the weak link in the chain is either your lens or some aspect of your technique. Open an unsharpened image (probably a TIFF conversion of a RAW image), and do an EXTREME pixel peep -- large enough that you can see individual pixels, one by one. Find a very sharp edge -- a transition from dark to light. Then estimate how many pixels it takes to make that transition from dark to light. If the transition is made within approx. 1.5 pixels (or maybe 2 pixels), that degree of blur can be attributable to your antialiasing filter, and your lens might indeed be outresolving your sensor. In that case you might benefit from a higher resolution sensor. You are likely to see the most room for sensor resolution improvement in the dead center of the frame. If you don't see it there, you probably won't see it anywhere.</p>

<p>If you're seeing maybe a 3 pixel transition or more, then a higher resolution sensor will not improve your overall resolution, and you need to address some combination of optics or technique. You can then narrow down between those two by using a tripod, high shutter speed, flash, f/8'ish aperture, front/back focus testing, or whatever.</p>

<p>BTW, when considering whether to upgrade sensor resolution (and how you might need such an upgrade), remember that it takes 4 times the pixels to double the resolution! In most cases, modest megapixel increases are rather insignificant.</p>

<p>Now.... Let the onslaught of snarky anti-peeping comments commence!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Tom, the real question is for you, not for us. Are there ways in which <em>you </em>find the current body to limit your photography? Or not?</p>

<p>The camera you have is very capable when it comes to image quality. There are things that a more expensive cropped sensor body (or a full frame body) might let you do, but do you need these things? If you are not regularly making very large prints and you are not feeling slowed down by this camera, there is a very good chance that you would be better off saving your money and continuing to use what you have for now - keeping the focus on the creation of images and not letting it slip over into becoming a focus on gear acquisition.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Modern lenses and modern sensors work very well, indeed.</p>

<p>As others have pointed out, camera stability, ISO choices, and the like are much more likely to be sources of problems than is incompacity of lens or sensor. There is a breed of pixel-peepers who worry about this sort of thing and trade lenses at the drop of a DxO test. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is senseless.</p>

<p>Unless you are doing billboard-size enlargements to be viewed at nose-tip distance, everything above 8 MP is pretty much overkill.<br>

What really counts is whether the final picture works, not the number of lines per centimeter resolved.</p>

<p>Still, it is nice to have the bragging rights to super lenses and sensors, but that is "bling" not photography. ;)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You have fine lenses and a fine camera.</p>

<p>Are you shooting in Raw? If not, you're not getting the most out of your lens/body combination. Shoot in Raw and then use Digital Lens Optimization software (DLO is included in Digital Photo Professional that shipped with your camera) and a competent Raw conversion program to convert you images to JPEG, adjusting all parameters to more closely mimic what your eye saw.</p>

<p>DLO software will correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, softness, etc. at every aperture and every focal length and every body that you own. The lenses are intended to be corrected today. DPP is free and you have it to try DLO. Lightroom, Dxo and other Raw conversion software also have DLO included, so be sure to activate it.</p>

<p>If there's something that you want to do that your current body will not do, tell us and we'll suggest a more appropriate camera.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Hmm, I seem to have coined a new term in editing - <em>incompacity</em><br /> <br /> I like it, and it's too late to change anyhow <em>:O<br /></em></p>

<p>OED personnel, take note, this may an historic usage.<br /> Later note: alas, it actually has been used before, sob. (<a href="http://justsayitbelinda.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-know-lady-who-lives-on-incompacity.html">link</a>)<em><br /></em></p>

[nico_morris]

<p>If you're like me you'll need 2x the megapixels to really notice.<br>

Don't worry about it till the 70D is going cheap.</p>

[matthijs]

Depending on the purpose of your photography, the quality of the equipment, your qualities taking photographs and at

least as important your postprocessing skills... you need a better camera.

 

But my guess is you don't.

 

What is your purpose with your photographs?

Art, fine detail, business, product pjotography?

 

How good are you?

 

That said...

 

If you think a new body improves your confidence or it feels better in hand and you've got the money to spare... I'd say go

for it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

If your camera body allows for it look into fine tuning the auto focus performance of your camera body with those lenses

using the camera's autofocus micro-adjust settings.

 

The best way to get the most of any camera and any lens is to use the hell out of it.

[ant_nio_gomes]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a big advantage to be had regarding picture quality with an upgrade?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is there something you really need to do and you can't do due to the limitations imposed by your present camera body?<br>

Will a new one allow you to do it?<br>

Do you think this is important to you in terms of your progression as a photographer?<br>

The answer is up to you and it can be yes or no, even if a yes is not driven by real needs and you decide to go forward just for your own satisfaction.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The best way to get the most of any camera and any lens is to use the hell out of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1.<br>

If you're happy with the quality you get out of your current gear, then your body is getting the best out of your lenses, and vice versa. If you're not happy, then describe the problem, test and see whether the problem originates in your technique, crap lighting, the body or the lenses.... But why look to upgrade if you're happy?</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>What camera were you thinking of to replace your 450D? If you can afford a used 7D then go ahead by all means. If you are going to shoot better pictures is totally up to you. The 7D IS a better camera than the one you have and capable to produce excellent pictures with the lenses you've got. Good luck!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Hmm, I seem to have coined a new term in editing - <em>incompacity</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>I like it! Though I think I might change it to <em>incomepacity </em> - defined as the ability of one's income to cover the costs of acquiring expensive things. "I'd love to buy that new camera, but it is beyond my <em>incomepacity </em>right now."</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>... or, "I'm currently incomepacitated." :-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>:)</p>

[tom_lacey]

<p>thanks very much for the replies folks<br>

Sarah,i haven't printed out a photo in years--but it would be nice in the future to have the option years down the line of framing a few of my better ones...as to what size, i suppose A4 size would be max i would go.At the moment most photos i take as emailed/shared etc electronically<br>

Dan -- i am not finding any limitations with my current set up--but then again you never know what's possible until you try something "better". But going by the replies , i will not get any benefit from upgrading i think<br>

David -- i shoot in JPEG-- one of main reasons is that i like to be snap happy when i go away and literally take 1000's of photos (different settings/angles etc) -- i would need an awful amount of memory cards/harddrive storage to deal with this--i know one solution is to be more selective in my shooting and lower the photo count....At the moment i shoot JPEG (have sharpness/contrast etc turned to 0 on camera settings) and then run the photos throught autocontrast and unsharp mask in Photoshop cs4. I don't have/use DPP/DLO-- might try root out the canon disks that came with the camera and install it-- To be honest, shooting in RAW always frighted to me as it seems there is so much work to do to get a final product from the RAW file--probably not as bad as i think, just need to get started somewhere i suppose and give it a shot!<br>

Mattijs--i mainly shoot nature--landscapes, anything outdoors etc. The odd wedding as a guest. But i would say 90% are outdoor shots with 80% of those some sort of landscape photo. AS to how good i am, well i would say i am improving....<br>

Ellis, never came across those settings but will look out to see if i can find them</p>

<p>Panavotis , I had no camera in mind---one of first searches that came back from "canon eos450d vs 7d" did not give a very complimentary review on the 7d's image quality</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Tom, you can shoot in Raw and convert to jpeg with presets while automatically correcting for lens errors. CS4 is only for fine tuning of images. Lightroom or DxO Optics Pro, among others, are way more effecient at converting Raw images with large batch processing.</p>

<p>The heading of this thread was, "am I getting the most out of my lenses?" You're clearly not getting the most out of your lenses, but you don't seem to be willing to adjust to get a superior result.</p>

<p>About the 7D, it's in it's fifth year. If you go to DPReview and compare the high ISO performance of the 70D (with the latest sensor) to the 7D, you see a clear advantage to the new sensor. Moores Law seems to apply to sensor design also, so I'd go with a newer design whenever I upgrade. Also, the newer Digic processors are way more powerful than the 7D's.</p>

[tom_lacey]

<p>Hi David<br>

It's not that i am not willing to adjust to get a superior result--just a little daunted by software really!--so say for example i shot in RAW and got lightroom , how does the flow look:<br>

lightroom: convert from RAW to JPEG , selecting the option that applies to the individual lens to correct for errors inherent to that lens?<br>

PS cs4-- transfer the JPEGS to this program to run a batch autocontrast , unsharp mask to them ( or whatever, these are the two things i do to my own photos)<br>

Corel paint shop pro x2-- adjust saturation/shadows/highlights/ on each photo to my liking</p>

<p>is that how it would look? lightroom--> PS sc4---> paint shop?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You can sharpen during your Raw conversion in LR. You would only use PS if you needed layers for some reason. I use it for Cloning, Panorama and the few things that you can't do with a local brush. I know of no reason that you'd prefer PaintShop to LR for Saturation/Shadows/Highlights.</p>

<p>If you're already adjusting jpegs for Sat/Shadows/Highlights, you'll one or two more stops of DR by shooting Raw and doing those adjustments in Raw conversion. LR is a leader at recovering Highlights and Shadows and having a Raw file gives you that much better results.</p>

[tom_lacey]

<p>hi David<br>

will look into getting Lightroom <br>

Doesn't sound "too" complicated, even for me....WOuld be handy have one program do the RAW-JPEG converversion, sharpening, autocontrast ,Sat/Shadows/Highlights/Brightness for me<br>

<br>

Suppose an hour or two on youtube tutorials would get me started <br>

<br>

cheers</p>