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]

Well they do have competitions that are srtictly for camera phones these days.  I wish they would make a camera that is strictly for still and skip the video.  Maybe then they could focus more on the things I really want in a camera.    

[Skirball]

Nothing was sacrified to add video.  Canon's dSLRs are first and foremost cameras for stills.  The new cameras are just as capable as older cameras at producing clear images; in many situations they are more capable.  But as discussed before, you have to understand a camera's capabilities in order to take advantage of them.

[cale_kat]

"Maybe then they could focus more on the things I really want in a camera."

---

@Cindy-Clicks wrote:

Well they do have competitions that are srtictly for camera phones these days.  I wish they would make a camera that is strictly for still and skip the video.  Maybe then they could focus more on the things I really want in a camera.    

---

Had you come to this forum before you bought the 6D, this thread could have been very positive. But the tone you have set is negative and not improving. Perhaps you might find a way to be more positive.

[Cindy-Clicks]

It just seems like not very many people shoot in the same manner that I do and I feel like I am in a minority, even though I have some good credentials when it comes to photography.   Like I said, I have come to expect my camera to perform in a certain way and when it doesn't it disturbs me, especially since it is a sacrifice for me to spend a lot of money on equipment.  It doesn't matter though because I have the dirve to keep on moving forward no matter what.  I am willing to go the extra mile when it comes to my photography and that may be one of the reasons why I have been so successful.  I want equipment that can keep up with me.   I would rather have a camera does what I want it to than have the camera dictate what I do.  I had said previously that I am willing to give it more time.  I wanted to get a full frame camera but I still intend to use a crop sensor, and I am anxiously waiting to find out how the new Tamron 16-300mm stacks up because that kind of range definitely appeals to someone like me.  

[cicopo]

I think it's pretty clear that you've decided a better camera (or more expensive) camera is supposed to include a very large box of talent inside. A true craftsman can make any set of tools do the job. It may take more work than having the preferrred tool set but they will still produce a fine work of art. How on earth do you think artists of any kind did their thing in ancient Rome.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Well actually I am also an accomplished seamstress and I can tell you that I enjoy hand sewing much better than machine sewing.  I have much more control.  They don't make the perfect sewing machine either, and definitely not a perfect steam iron.  I often wonder how much more effective tools would be if only women were designing them.  Don't assume I am sexist, but I'm just saying.  

[cicopo]

It sounds like you agree that a more expensive tool is no guarantee of better results. However once it's mastered things you couldn't do before become much easier & are usually superior to anything done before. The camera is no different than a sewing machine in that it needs an operator to make it do anything. A better / more expensive camera will only improve your results in areas that your old camera couldn't go. By that I'm talking about things like a faster AF system which wouldn't make a noticible difference shooting stationary targets but it sure changes things when shooting fast paced action. Entry level cameras don't come with all the bells & whistles but then again many who buy them never even read the manual let alone learn how to use the features they've paid for.

[ebiggs1]

I think I am understanding where she is coming from.  If you won a Pulitzer Prize with a G15  (P&S) and than didn't win one with the insanely expensive ESO 1Dx you just bought, was it a good buy?  Her answer is obiviously, no.

I think she should sell the 6D and put that money towards some more glass.

[cale_kat]

The G15 is no p&s. Unless you consider any camera with a fixed lens to be a from the point and shoot category. I have owned a number of compact cameras and my most recent, a G15, is the most SLR-like.

[ebiggs1]

"a G15, is the most SLR-like."

You said it. "SLR-like"  It is certainly not an SLR.  So just what do we call it?