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?

[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.  

[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.

[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