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?

[cale_kat]

Ms. Cindy, You have an excellent eye for photography. Thank you for sharing your work.

[Skirball]

---

@Cindy-Clicks wrote:

I am talking about the ones who really made it to the top.

---

Being internationally recognized by International Garden Photographer of the Year isn't making it to the top?

[Cindy-Clicks]

I have been told that you need to win a lot of international competitions to make it to the top.  I don't see anyone pounding on  my door...yet.   

But I must say that I feel I have finally turned the corner with the 6D.  I am liking it very much.  Yes the Macro is a bit more persnickity than my old zoom, but I will adjust.  What I didn't realize is that my old 28-300 works on the 6D and it is wonderful.  I just need to get it sent back to Tamron to get refurbished.  I wish Canon made a super zoom for the full frame that could be as lightweight as the Tamron.  

[TCampbell]

Macro is always persnickity.  When the distances get really tight, the difference between what is in focus vs. out of focus is just the tiniest fraction of an inch.

True macro lenses tend to have very fine detail resolving capability that exceeds even what prime lenses can generally offer, which exceeds what zooms lenses can offer, which exceeds what super-zooms can offer.

If you really want to be able to count every fiber on a plant and every point of pollen on a flower... that macro lens is it.

[ebiggs1]

"What I didn't realize is that my old 28-300 works on the 6D and it is wonderful."

I just can not imagine anybody liking or picking this lens over the Canon 100mm L.  But, hey, I guess that's just me.

These two lenses are not even on the same planet.

[Cindy-Clicks]

They each have their purpose.  When I am visiting a garden, sometimes I want a close up, but other times I want a landscape.  The zoom has always allowed me to get the composition I want.  

[ebiggs1]

They may have vastly different applications but they certainly have vastly different quality, too.

[cale_kat]

True, but your post doesn't share what the quality differences are so we're left with the impression that the differences might only be recognized by a perfectionist.

[TCampbell]

---

@cale_kat wrote:
True, but your post doesn't share what the quality differences are so we're left with the impression that the differences might only be recognized by a perfectionist.

---

I have a personal friend who is a chef.  One day we decided to pick up some things at the market to take home and prepare our own meal -- we bought whatever looked good and would figure out how to prepare something later.   But we needed a good wine to go with the meal.

We checked to see what wine we might have on-hand and found a bottle of a Stag's Leap cab -- a very nice wine.  

I uncorked it, poured a couple fo glasses, and was about to take a sip.  

And here's where the story is going...

The chef stops me "what are you doing?"  I tell him I was about to have a sip of the wine while we cook.  He says "You can't just start drinking a wine that good after freshly uncorking it.   You've got to let it breath first."

I respond that I'm not a wine expert and would never be able to tell the difference.

He objects!  "NONSENSE!  EVERYONE would be able to tell the difference.  I'll PROVE it!"

He has me take one sip of the wine to get a good sense for it.  Then look at my watch.  I was not permitted to touch the glass again for 1 hour.

At the end of the hour, he announces "Times up!  Take another sip."

I take a sip and I am ASTONISHED at the difference.  Any untrained pedestrian would have noticed the difference.  It does NOT take an expert.  It only takes someone who actually bothers to make the comparison at all.

In another thread here on the Canon forums we're discussing some nuances of comparison between super-zooms and non super-zooms.

It's fair to say that if you use only small size images you probably will not notice the difference (or at least it would be difficult to notice the differences.)  In a large gallery sized print and with a subject where you need corner-to-corner sharpness (e.g. suppose it's a landscape since those typically try to have everything in sharp focus) then for THOSE images you WOULD notice the difference and ... probably _everyone_ would notice that difference in they merely took the time to compare.

Sometimes you only want your sharply focused subject somewhere away from the edges of the frame and the background material around the edges was supposed to be out of focus anyway -- in those situations you probably will not notice the difference.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Ok, after today I can finally admit it was worth the money.  Here is one example, and its true, "you can count the hairs."  But what I find myself doing is taking the same shot at different aperture settings in order to determine later which shot I am going to like the best at a certain clarity that looks appealing to me.  I can start to drive myself a little crazy with this.  I like the background burred by I want the whole flower in focus and finding the perfect balance can be tricky.   I carried both cameras today because there were many times I went for a wider angle shot that required my other lens, or even times when I was not able to get close enough and that is where the 300mm came in handy.  Like I said before, if Canon could make a nice zoom that is comparable and higher quality, but lighter, like the Tamron, I would be first in line for it.