cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Upgrade from 400D (Rebel XRi) 2007

sam6
Contributor

Hi,

 

I purchased the 400D (Rebel TXi) in 2007, my first and so far only EOS camera, and I have a total of 5 lenses.  I have always found no matter what setting I am in, even in auto, the colour quality is poor.  My brother-in-law's Nikon and my husband's smart phone take better pictures (brighter colours and crisper picture).  The colours just are not crisp or bright on my camera, they are dull and wishy washy!  I have been told that it was the technology of the time and most, if not all, cameras of today should not have this issue?!?! 

 

I am looking to upgrade and wonder which camera is best?  Rebel T6i, Rebel T6s, 70D, or 60D.  I am not a pro and cannot afford a top of the line camera, these are in my price range.

 

I assume any of these cameras will be compatible with my lenses?    

 

Any advice or info is appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

 

5 REPLIES 5

Peter
Authority
Authority


@sam6 wrote:

Hi,

 

I purchased the 400D (Rebel TXi) in 2007, my first and so far only EOS camera, and I have a total of 5 lenses.  I have always found no matter what setting I am in, even in auto, the colour quality is poor.  My brother-in-law's Nikon and my husband's smart phone take better pictures (brighter colours and crisper picture).  The colours just are not crisp or bright on my camera, they are dull and wishy washy!  I have been told that it was the technology of the time and most, if not all, cameras of today should not have this issue?!?! 

 

I am looking to upgrade and wonder which camera is best?  Rebel T6i, Rebel T6s, 70D, or 60D.  I am not a pro and cannot afford a top of the line camera, these are in my price range.

 

I assume any of these cameras will be compatible with my lenses?    

 

Any advice or info is appreciated.

 

Thanks

 


I wouldn't try to dissuade you from upgrading; the XTi is a bit primitive by today's standards. But I don't think color quality should be an issue. My wife and I both had XTi's as our first DSLRs, and the colors were always fine. I suspect that inadequate post-processing may be the problem in your case. Shoot in RAW mode, and experiment (using DPP, for example) with different picture styles and WB corrections. You may find that your camera is better than you think.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Attached are examples.  As you can see the colour in my picture (taken with my kit lens and in auto) is not as vivid nor bright.  The other picture was taken with a Nikon (sorry don't know which one) with the kit 18-55 lens and in Auto. 

 

I do realise I need to take a class to learn more about my camera and maybe even spend an entire weekend trying out different settings / modes etc., when I can find a spare weekend!

 

Most of the time I am not able to stop and play with my settings etc. and that I only have time to take quick photos in auto.  I want to be able to do this and get a great photo, if that makes sense?! 

 

Anyways, I appreciate all advice and comments.

 

My photo.JPG

 

N photo.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


@sam6 wrote:

Attached are examples.  As you can see the colour in my picture (taken with my kit lens and in auto) is not as vivid nor bright.  The other picture was taken with a Nikon (sorry don't know which one) with the kit 18-55 lens and in Auto. 

 

I do realise I need to take a class to learn more about my camera and maybe even spend an entire weekend trying out different settings / modes etc., when I can find a spare weekend!

 

Most of the time I am not able to stop and play with my settings etc. and that I only have time to take quick photos in auto.  I want to be able to do this and get a great photo, if that makes sense?! 

 

Anyways, I appreciate all advice and comments.


Shoot in RAW; open the image file in DPP; select "Landscape" picture style; and tighten up the left side of the gamma curve. Those are routine post-processing adjustments, and the result should approximate what you got with the Nikon.

 

BTW, consider shooting in P ("Program") mode instead of auto. Auto is just P mode for dummies.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

The last time I brought this up on another photography forum, it sparked a debate.  But here goes...

 

Color only exists in your mind.  The real world does not actually have color.  Our brains invent it.   Your eye has "cones" which are senstivie to specific wavelengths of light and your brain manufacturers an image based on the wavelengths being detected and you see it as "color".

 

Even with film, photographers would often select film specifically because of how it renders color.  When I shot weddings, I always selected Kodak VPS film because VPS rendered subdued and softened tones that was very beautiful at soften the look of the bride, the flowers, etc.   If I want to portray an emotion of soft, gentile beauty, then I tend to want to subdue and soften the colors.  If I want to create an image to convey a feeling of excitment, high-energy, etc. then I want strong punchy color.  Back the film days we handled this by film selection and processing methods.  But today you can get this by changing a setting on your camera.

 

Your camera has something called "picture style" and you can use this to select natural/faithful color or you can use it to create subdued hues, saturated hues, or even perform color substitutions.

 

I have seen similar comparisons to the example you posted and I find that Canon's default settings are more true/faithful to the level of color my eye sees in the real world (which is what I want the camera to do).   I have just occasinoally pulled an image out of the camera wherein I was expecting to see stronger colors -- the image did not match up with my "photographic vision" for a shot.  I'd go back and evaluate the actual location I used and I'd realize... the grass actually IS faded.  The greens actually were NOT lush.  There was more "brown" and dullness in the scene than I remembered.  The camera was being true.

 

Of course if want things to look more lush, I can always boost saturation.  If you use a circular polarizing filter (and rotate the filter on your lens until it applies the amount of polarization that you want) you get a saturating effect (technically it reduces reflections, but this has the effect of boosting perceived saturation) and of course you can always saturate using your photo editor.  Good editors usually have two adjustments... one is "saturation" which is flat, across the board color saturation.  The other is "vibrance".  Vibrance is the same as saturation except it tries to protect hues associated with skin tones.   This lets you saturate a scene containing people without saturating their skin to the point that they resemble a tangerine color.  (really good photo editors allow you to adjust saturation levels on any color hue you want.)

 

The bottom line is:  you are in control.  You can tell the camera to boost saturation either at the time of capture (if shooting JPEG) or in post-processing on your computer after the image is captured.  

 

Here's quick sheet on Canon's Picture Style choices.

 

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_PictureStyles_QuickGuide.pdf

 

Also you can create your own custom Picture Styles and there's even a Picture Style editor (software that comes with the camera) that allows you to create your own named picture styles which you can then load into the camera.

 

Your camera is fairly sophisticated... if you want a saturated look, it's easily achieved.

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
Avatar
click here to view the press release
Announcements