upgrade from the SL1 - T8i, 77D, SL3?

[amatula15]

Hi,

For awhile now I have been considering upgrading my Canon SL1 which I have owned for 6 years.

I had posted awhile back on this, but then looked elsewhere (Olympus, Panasonic) at image stabilized bodies (as sharp, stabilized images can sometimes be a challenge for me -- I hike so a tripod is not always feasible).

But I have been getting creative with stabilization and find myself improving in this area, so wondering if perhaps a Canon APS-C DSLR camera might work as an upgrade.

I do like the advanced functionality qand lighter weight of the 77D and T8i (vs the 80D and 90D which are heavier), such as HDR, bracketing, customizations... And I want to work with star trails and night photography a bit more, as well as using ND filters (have not done that yet).

I own the EF 24 mm F/2.8 IS and considering addeing the 18-55 F/2.8 and 10-18 mm lens if I stay with Canon APS-C.

What I am wondering would there be a noticeable difference iin image quality 77D vs T8i vs SL3?

(since I am a landscape photographer, better dynamic range is goo!)

And would one of those serve my purposes better than others?

Mostly I like to use out of camera JPEGs but want to "upgrade" that too and do some raw processing, but I don't want to spend a lot of time with it generally.

I want to stay light as I am a hiker who hikes long distances.
I don't want mirrorless yet due to its infant stages....

Thank you and all the best!
Annie

[amatula15]

Thank you, Bob!
I would never had guessed this as an issue.. And I do use the pop up flash at times for fill flash.

[amatula15]

Ebiggs, I like that!
Can you somewhat easily set settings with the plastic over it?
I will check into the 90D when I get to the store 🙂 Thank you for all your help!

[ebiggs1]

Yes, I leave the back of the bag open. Or if you prefer, you can completely seal it. It is easy to change settings.

[amatula15]

Thank you, Ebiggs!

I will try that sometime!!

And I exchanged my Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 for the Canon 17-55 F/2.8

It was odd, but I thought the Sigma let in about 1 - 2 less F-stops of light.  But it is a very good lens.

Annie

[ebiggs1]

"...I exchanged my Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 for the Canon 17-55 F/2.8"

Great!  The Canon is by far the better choice between those two.

"...I thought the Sigma let in about 1 - 2 less F-stops of light."

I doubt that but what caused you to believe so? There are two reasons why you might see this.  The Siggy might vignette more than the Canon.  It is easily corrected in post edit but a glance at an unprocessed image might appear that way.

Another reason is, beside the f-ratio, I.E. f2.8, lenses have a T ratio. That is transmission light through the lens.  Some lenses reflect light differently and loose or waste some light.  I don't know on the top of my head what the T ratio of the two lenses is but I bet the Canon is better.   Remember f ratio is a lens function.  It is a simple fraction equation of a concave or convex lens. And in this case, just piece of glass, not the entire package you think of when we say the word lens.

It has nothing to do with the camera.

[ebiggs1]

"...I exchanged my Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 for the Canon 17-55 F/2.8"

Annie, 

The only Sigma lens in this range I an good with is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon. Barring you buying this lens, stick with Canon lenses. This lens is absolutely fantastic and very fast.  Fastest in class. It has superb IQ also best in class. I used one on a 90D for a while and loved it. Hard to give it back.

[amatula15]

Ebiggs,

At the store, I did a comparison of the 2 lens outside (Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 vs Canon 17-55/F.28); it seemed like there was 1 one sep difference. But as you can say, it could have been anything.

I looked up the T Ratio (was not familiar with that before so thank you for mentioning!
The Sigma is actually a bit lower:

Canon: 3.4Tstop  

Sigma: 3.1Tstop  

[Removed 3rd party link per forum guidelines]

Interestingly, that comparison has the Sigma overall as the better lens, including for sharpness.
But I actually thought the Canon was sharper, probably why I should not pay too much attention to these  kinds of analyses.

All the best, Annie

[ebiggs1]

"Interestingly, that comparison has the Sigma overall as the better lens, including for sharpness.
But I actually thought the Canon was sharper, probably why I should not pay too much attention to these  kinds of analyses."

I never go by the so called tests. That is why I took on the rather expensive hobby of lens testing on my own.  No lab, just real world use. One of the worst, IMHO, is DXO if that is where you read your data. 

Most of a time people judge a lens simply on one spec, IQ.  Everything else is not relevant. But in truth we all know a lens should be judged on it entirety. 

When you read the t ratio, remember it is also just one spec.  " I did a comparison of the 2 lens outside..." While I think this a good idea and one a lot of people don't do, it again isn't real conclusive, by itself. I did the same thing when I was buying my first 150-600mm super zoom.  Overland Camera, a local camera store, let me try it out outside. I wanted to see how the AF did before I bought one. What you should have done to complete your analysis of the two lenses in question, was to take the images you shot home and check them out in a good editor like PS. Like I said before a vignetted image can appear like it is down a 1/2 or full stop. When in fact it is not. It is an easy correction in post.

The f ratio is a round up or down. Usually down because the ad department has a say in it.  Sometimes a lens may factually be a f1.447 but the rounding it is stated as a f1.4. The same is true with FL. The actual FL may be 193mm but it gets rounded to 200mm.  All of this has to be considered and the lens taken as a package and not just one spec. Make sense?