Worth changing body?
Discussion
I have a Canon 450d, had it about 2 years with a few lenses and i've never been that impressed with photos i've taken. I've used a few mates 7D and 550D and I can get good shots, but anything out of the 450d just doesn't compare (using the same lenses btw).
The 450d now lives in the cuboard, as I never get good results I don't take it out. I'm in 2 minds to sell the 450d and upgrade it to a 600d (or similar). I know people say its more about the lens, but I think the 450d is just not upto scratch.
The 450d now lives in the cuboard, as I never get good results I don't take it out. I'm in 2 minds to sell the 450d and upgrade it to a 600d (or similar). I know people say its more about the lens, but I think the 450d is just not upto scratch.
Back in the day before DSLRs it was all about the lenses, as the body really was just a black box to protect the film.
Now days the bodies do make a difference as they have a sensor in them. Although lenses still do make a difference!
If you can afford it I can't figure out a bad reason not to upgrade.
Now days the bodies do make a difference as they have a sensor in them. Although lenses still do make a difference!
If you can afford it I can't figure out a bad reason not to upgrade.
I have a 400D and a 600D. A quick comparison trying to find some similar shots at a cricket match where I used both (albeit probably different lenses if the light is similar) suggests that you may see a gain in resolution but for a general picture not much difference in the final result unless you look at technical details at full resolution. As an image both cameras can produce good results.
Now, I'm talking using RAW files and doing some post processing. I have yet to check settings and compare jpg files.
If you are seeing huge differences in the same shooting conditions (and assuming you are not doing something very specialised) then something sounds odd. You may want to compare the EXIF data on the files to see if it throws up any obvious anomalies for settings.
On the other hand if you really really need a new toy to play with - maybe to get into video or something? - then go for it!
Now, I'm talking using RAW files and doing some post processing. I have yet to check settings and compare jpg files.
If you are seeing huge differences in the same shooting conditions (and assuming you are not doing something very specialised) then something sounds odd. You may want to compare the EXIF data on the files to see if it throws up any obvious anomalies for settings.
On the other hand if you really really need a new toy to play with - maybe to get into video or something? - then go for it!
Well, I've noticed a lot of the shots come out on a slant with my camera and fine on all the others I use. They also tend not to be as vivid and sharp, regardless of what I do.
I used the 7D for a wedding (not professional type) and was amazed at the results just by quickly shooting, whereas with the 450d, even taking time all the shots seem flat and dull.
I'm by no means a good photographer, but don't understand how easy it is with the better body's.
Maybe I'll get a new lens, if I don't see results the only thing to protect my investment will be a new body as well
I used the 7D for a wedding (not professional type) and was amazed at the results just by quickly shooting, whereas with the 450d, even taking time all the shots seem flat and dull.
I'm by no means a good photographer, but don't understand how easy it is with the better body's.
Maybe I'll get a new lens, if I don't see results the only thing to protect my investment will be a new body as well
illmonkey said:
Well, I've noticed a lot of the shots come out on a slant with my camera and fine on all the others I use. They also tend not to be as vivid and sharp, regardless of what I do.
I used the 7D for a wedding (not professional type) and was amazed at the results just by quickly shooting, whereas with the 450d, even taking time all the shots seem flat and dull.
I'm by no means a good photographer, but don't understand how easy it is with the better body's.
Maybe I'll get a new lens, if I don't see results the only thing to protect my investment will be a new body as well
Um, there no real standard explanation for the slant althoug I will say that I have a tendency to be a tad off horizontal with all cameras.I used the 7D for a wedding (not professional type) and was amazed at the results just by quickly shooting, whereas with the 450d, even taking time all the shots seem flat and dull.
I'm by no means a good photographer, but don't understand how easy it is with the better body's.
Maybe I'll get a new lens, if I don't see results the only thing to protect my investment will be a new body as well
Flat images in otherwise identical situtations (the same light and lens combination) suggests something is different between the settings. You can adjust the default settings and set them to something else. Do the jpg file names start with an I or a _ ? This indicates which colour space the camera is set to use and a mismatch there between file and screen display can produce some oddly flat and muddy looking images straight out of the camera. Something to eliminate from the investigation.
Are you sure you have the 450 set up properly? Are you shooting raw? What's the white balance set to? I have a 350d and have shot some lovely photos with it. I do agree the body makes a difference but it's worth checking it's not a setting that's making your shots look bland before ditching it for another body.
illmonkey said:
Well, I've noticed a lot of the shots come out on a slant with my camera and fine on all the others I use. They also tend not to be as vivid and sharp, regardless of what I do.
I used the 7D for a wedding (not professional type) and was amazed at the results just by quickly shooting, whereas with the 450d, even taking time all the shots seem flat and dull.
Are you shooting JPG? If so colour saturation, sharpness and probably other parameters are applied in camera as the image is processed. If you go through the menus there are probably settings where you can crank them all up to your taste. I think your issue is all about processing not the camera.I used the 7D for a wedding (not professional type) and was amazed at the results just by quickly shooting, whereas with the 450d, even taking time all the shots seem flat and dull.
Something wrong here - the 450d is more than good enough. I'd be bold enough to say that in good light at base ISO and displaying on a screen it would be very difficult to see a difference between the images shot on a 450d or 7D.
I have used both by the way.
I went to a Canon photgraphic competition last year and many outstanding images were shot on 20D and 30D cameras.
Unless you're pushing boundaries or requiring something exceptional (low light performance, frame rate or extereme resolution for very large printed enlargements) a 450d will deliver very high amounts of detail.
As mentioned above it's the way the camera's set up or something else.
One thought - I hope you're not judging images oin the camera's LCD screen...?
I have used both by the way.
I went to a Canon photgraphic competition last year and many outstanding images were shot on 20D and 30D cameras.
Unless you're pushing boundaries or requiring something exceptional (low light performance, frame rate or extereme resolution for very large printed enlargements) a 450d will deliver very high amounts of detail.
As mentioned above it's the way the camera's set up or something else.
One thought - I hope you're not judging images oin the camera's LCD screen...?
I agree with the above - I have a 400D and a 7D. I enjoy the additional features and ergonomics of the 7D - and the sensor gives better high ISO performance - and the AF is tremendous for action - but like for like in good light there's not much to choose in IQ unless you crop the image heavily.
If anything, I get better shots from my 400D as I'm far less precious about where and when I'll take it with me.
If anything, I get better shots from my 400D as I'm far less precious about where and when I'll take it with me.
illmonkey said:
Is there 'default' or advised settings to have the camera on then? Or can anyone tell me what settings they're talking about and I can post up what they are?
Someone may have cocked about with them.
Can't remember if it's the case with your body, but generally there is a menu command to allow for a "reset" facility - back to factory settings - Propbably a good place to start.Someone may have cocked about with them.
ETA
Linky thing http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1...
Edited by covboy on Wednesday 15th August 08:22
illmonkey said:
Is there 'default' or advised settings to have the camera on then? Or can anyone tell me what settings they're talking about and I can post up what they are?
Someone may have cocked about with them.
You haven't said if you shoot JPG or RAW yet. This is important because with JPG the camera does the processing, but with RAW you do it.Someone may have cocked about with them.
Got a manual?
I use raw 100% of the time with my 450D. I don't take lots of photographs, so post processing with Canon DPP is not a problem. Once I have adjusted and converted the raw file, I fine tune in Faststone.
I shall be upgrading to a 60D later in the year for the reasons already mentioned IE: better ISO, but I shall keep my 450D and change the focus screen for use with manual lenses.
The 450D is a great camera and can produce some wonderful results, once it has been mastered.
I shall be upgrading to a 60D later in the year for the reasons already mentioned IE: better ISO, but I shall keep my 450D and change the focus screen for use with manual lenses.
The 450D is a great camera and can produce some wonderful results, once it has been mastered.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff