Does spending more mean getting less?

[Cindy-Clicks]

Unlike a lot of my colleagues in the field, I stayed with my T3i until I proved myself worthy of an upgrade.  But now that I decided to get a "better" camera, I am finding that spending more money means I am getting less performance.  Why is that?   I decided to buy a Pentax K-3, but eventually returned it because it did not give me the flexibilty I wanted.  I decided to put off buying another crop sensor camera for now, so I bought a 6D with a 100mm Macro L-glass lens.  My old T3i with a Tamron 28-300 zoom still produces much better images under the same conditions. What gives?

[cuda719]

There is a learning curve with everypiece of new equipment we buy. You can notsetthe same settings on every camera and get the same results. The 6D is a full frame camera you were shooting with a crop. The ISO settings are going to be a little different becaus of the range of the camera. What white balance setting are you using what picture mode are you in. These will all have an effecton the picture are you shooting raw or jpg.

[MikeSowsun]

Using a Full Frame camera at the same settings as a Crop camera will give you less depth of field.  More of the image will have out of focus blur. That could account for some of what you are seeing in some photos.

I can't really say if that applies in the example you provided as it is quite small, and I can't really tell if it is out of focus, or there is motion blur. 

[ScottyP]

Mike beat me to it. Aside from ordinary focus issues which need to be nailed down, the FF camera gives over a stop shallower DOF at the same aperture.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Ok,  I can accept that, but I think in this case it had more to do with camera shake.  Both were set at F16.

[ebiggs1]

I agree with the above gentlemen.  The two photo examples are not comparable.  Possibly you caught one set-up at it's best and the other at it's worst.  No camera, not even a EOS 1Dx will hit 100% of it's shots.

You buy the best equipment you can and than it is up to you, not the camera, to make the shot.  If easy shooting and no effort is your photographic goal, than a P&S would be a better choice.

A music lover told Chet Akins, after a concert, he had a great sounding guitar.  Chet said, "Oh is that a fact?"  He put the guitar in it's rack on the floor and starred at it.  Nothing, no sound!  After a while Chet said, "Maybe I had somnething to do with that 'sound'."

So you are the photographer, not the camera.

[Cindy-Clicks]

I will take your word for it for now but I can tell you that the new camera does not seem all that much different in my hand and I was able to take consitant shots with the T3i at a focal length of 300mm and 1/13 sec. with great clarity.  And the T3i shutter  is much clunkier.   I just don't appreciate spending a lot more money with the expectation that the performance will be better.  I just want a camera that will do what I want it to.  Tools should be a help and not a hinderance.  If camera companies want to appeal to world-class photographers, they would build a camera that would make shooting easier, not harder.  

[MikeSowsun]

 "I was able to take consitant shots with the T3i at a focal length of 300mm and 1/13 sec. with great clarity"  

To take a steady shot at 300mm amd 1/13 sec you need to have very steady hands AND extremely good Image Stabilization. The 6D should be even better for you provided the lens Image Stabilization is as good as the previous lens you were shooting with. 

"If camera companies want to appeal to world-class photographers, they would build a camera that would make shooting easier, not harder"  

What is it about the 6D that you think makes it harder to shoot than the T3i?  I have never used one but from what I have read, it is a very good camera. 

[Cindy-Clicks]

I am going to run it through some more tests to be sure, but I expect it to be at least as good as my old setup.  Initially I have not found that to be the case, but I am willing to give it a little more time.  Apparently Tamron has superior image stabilzation because I will be 60 next year(so not as steady as a younger person) and I have taken remarkable shots with it at low shutter speeds.  I like to be able to shoot unimpeded by tripods, which slow me down and cause me to miss shots.  Before I went camera shopping I asked for advice on DPReview and nobody responded.   I just wish I could find a camera that works well in a variety of conditions.  I can't imagine photographers actually enjoy lugging around a ton of equipment and missing shots while they are busy deciding what will work best for a certain situation.  It seems like you must have thousands of hours of experience working with these tempermental tools and a whole lot of luck to ever achieve world class.  But I have already won two international awards so far this year, so maybe I never should have tried to change what is already working.  

[cicopo]

When you can't get good results go back to the basics. A sturdy tripod & a test subject, good light & decent shutter speeds. Isolate which component is the problem, which is often the person hand holding. Until you know whether it's the camera, lens, settings etc you're just banging your head against the wall. Test for front or rear focusing, test with IS or VC off if on the tripod, test at different shutter speeds & different apertures. Test for consistency. After each shot manually focus the lens away from it's setting so that the AF has to re acquire for EVERY shot.

[TCampbell]

---

@Cindy-Clicks wrote:

I will take your word for it for now but I can tell you that the new camera does not seem all that much different in my hand and I was able to take consitant shots with the T3i at a focal length of 300mm and 1/13 sec. with great clarity.  And the T3i shutter  is much clunkier.   I just don't appreciate spending a lot more money with the expectation that the performance will be better.  I just want a camera that will do what I want it to.  Tools should be a help and not a hinderance.  If camera companies want to appeal to world-class photographers, they would build a camera that would make shooting easier, not harder.  

---

You don't get to take photos at 300mm and 1/13th of a second unless you have a non-moving camera (e.g. tripod or equivalent) and a non-moving subject (in the case of a flower you'd need to have a calm moment -- no wind).  It does not matter what lens you have or if the lens has image stabilization features.

The rule for a "full frame" camera is that typically the shutter speed needs to be the inverse of the focal length of the lens (or faster) in order to avoid shake on a hand-held shot when there is no image stabilization.

Image stabilization will buy you somewhere between 2 to 4 stops of slower shutter speeds... but it's not like 1, 2, 3, and 4 stops slower will be perfect and suddenly 5 stops slower will be terrible.  It's a bit of a continuum.  1 and 2 stops slower will probably be perfect.  3 stops will likely be good.  4 stops MIGHT be good.  5 stops will probably not be good.   BTW... only SOME lenses have good enough IS to claim 4 stops of stabilization.  Many can only claim 3 or 2.

There is no 1/300th shutter speed... the closest is 1/320th so we'll have to go with that and count down.  Also note that these shutter speeds are for a full-frame camera.  For a crop frame camera it would be the focal length X the crop factor as the minimum.  In other words a T3i at 300mm with no image stabilization needs a shutter speed of 1/480th or faster to avoid blur caused by camera movement.

Assuming the full-frame 6D where 1/320th is the minimum, here are the speeds.

1 stop slower is 1/160th

2 stops slower is 1/80th

3 stops slower is 1/40th

4 stops slower is 1/20th

You want to take a shot at 1/13th... that's not do-able regardless of the camera or lens.  You'd have to get very lucky.

Also... image stabilization only helps in situations where the camera is moving.  If the subject is moving it cannot help that situation.