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?

[Cindy-Clicks]

Then I must be really lucky because I do it all the time with my old camera and lens.  

[TCampbell]

It is a matter of physics.  It has nothing to do with the lens or camera.  You may want to review your images and the settings you actually used in great detail.  You may find you're not as lucky as you suspect.

If you want to improve as a photography, you'll want to learn these techniques that lead to consistently good results and rather than hoping to rely on luck.

[Cindy-Clicks]

There is a record of what settings I use.  I enjoy that I have been able to use this camera without the aid of a cumbersome tripod.  I purposely slow the shutter speed for some shots when I am taking photos of running water.  I learned photography on an Olympus OM-1 so I had to learn how a camera works, there was no other choice back in the day.  But I could not take a good shot at less than 1/30 with my 50mm lens.  I was just hoping that with newer technology, this would improve even more than what I am currently doing, but apparently not.   I think I should write to Tamron and commend them on their excellent image stabilization.

[ebiggs1]

In addition to what Tim has said, you must compare camera to camera and lens to lens.  You must use the same lens/camera set-up.  Not one camera with a Tamron and the other with a Canon lens.  Comditions must also be exactly the same.

It is a possibility you have a lens, the Canon 100mm, that has a problem.  You will never know if you don't test exactly the same.  Apples to apples thing!

There are a couple guys, and me, here on the forum that will gladly help and answer any questions you may have.  We all share a love of the hobby.

My personal opinion is, with the exception of a very few off brand lenses, Canon lenses are way better than the 3rd party stuff.

Canon does not reveal how it makes lenses work on it's cameras.  All third party makers, reverse engineer the lens to where they think it will work.  By far the most of them fail and are not worth much.  Plus they usually have poor customer service or repair.  This is my personal opinion but it leads me to think there is no way that Tamron is besting your Canon EF 100mm L Macro.

Let us know how it goes with more shots.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Thanks,  I will definitely put it to the test.  I did try a quick test today on some printed lettering and it appeared the Canon lens was sharper, but I will do a bunch more testing in a variety of circumstances comparing apples to apples.  At this point I am hopeful it will work out.  The 6D is definitely more of a professional level camera. 

[cale_kat]

Kudos.

[champco]

Hi Cindy.

Just reading the thread here I find our scenarios similar. I have just bought a 70D. Having not had opportunity enough yet to learn how to use it I am doing a lot of reading on the entire DSLR Phenonom. The past few years I have been using a Olympus C-4000 which is basically a point and shoot on steroids, mostly becuse it has a real lense. I have taken it to it's limits in many ways and always wanted to go back to a SLR. I bought my first OM1 in 1973 and my second one in 1977. Started with thousands of B&W and thousands of color exploring film speeds and lenses. I still use it. Looking back over the hoard of fading photo's I resolved to get into a DSLR. I bought the TI3 and after a few days decided it was not going to satisfy me. I returned it and bought the 70D adding a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is usm lense. I cant wait to get out and spend time using this setup but looking it over it's daunting. The Ti3 reminded a me a lot of the c-4000 with its camera settings, more sophisticated but using it was similar enough I was able to disect it's capabilities and disabilities. No burst shutter, limited video, but mostly a over all less quality feel to it then i expected, or the money. i also after reading decided I wanted wireless flash and wireless connectivity. At this point i have very slowly experimented with only a few settings with lots of ah ha,s.

My point here is I beleive you do get better equipment for your money. You got down with your Ti3. It was easier then the D6 will be but I cant imagine it taking lessor photos then the Ti3. I am somewhat stunned with the options available, with the better body and have already exceeded my expectations with the results of the digital photo's. Waiting to wow myself.

Best regards

[Cindy-Clicks]

Sometimes I just wish I could sit down with the designers and tell them everything I want in a camera and have them get to work on it.  I basically need about three different cameras to do all the types of shooting I do.  I live in the midwest and other photographers will say to me, what is there to shoot around here?  I am like, are you  kidding me?  I see everything, and if I don't, I create things to shoot.  I think the artistic types approach photography in a different way.  I would just like more convenience and less hassle with all the techno stuff.  I mean I want an impeccably sharp image but sometimes I wonder if it is worth all the sacrifice to keep up with the technology.  I wish I could keep the same camera for 25 years like my OM-1.  But we live in an age of disposable goods and the camera companies want to make money too.  

[ebiggs1]

" I live in the midwest and other photographers will say to me, what is there to shoot around here? "

I did an article once a long time ago, entitled "All you have to do is look!"

[Skirball]

Heh, I always enjoy your threads.  I see we're back to the 300 mm at 1/13 a sec thing again.  Those amazing steady hands.

---

@Cindy-Clicks wrote:

Oh I will put it through the paces and see what i come up with but it only stands to reason that I really ought to be getting a better camera with the 6D than the T3i.  

---

I've found, through reading these internet forums, that when people simplify comparisons of these highly complex cameras into simple “good, better, best” terms, it’s usually a sign that they don’t understand much about the actual differences.

The primary difference between the 6D and the Rebel line, as far as the final pictures are concerned, is the high ISO performance.  That is what you’re paying for.  Comparing 800 x 600 compressions of photos taking in good light isn’t going to show much of a difference.  With good light I can make most any decent camera produce good images.  At web-sized viewing I can make a camera phone produce results.