If it ain't broke??? To upgrade or not to upgrade.

[TexasKaren]

I was surfing the web looking for camera advice and found this forum. Think I'll stick around a while

I think I'm suffering from something called I'vehadmycameratoolong-itis. I currently have a very nice Canon T1i that I bought just after the stone age, or in 2009. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, other than I'm getting a bit grumpy at photos being out of focus when taken in low light situations. I'm not sure if that's a camera problem, a lens problem (Tamron 18-200mm) or an operator problem Anyway, I've had it for four years and I'm considering upgrading, maybe to the 70D. I'm also considering whether or not to get a different lens for everyday use. I like having a good all purpose lens because I mostly take photos when traveling and it's too much of a pain to have to switch lenses, not to mention I get nervous about changing lenses outside for fear that dust will get inside the camera. I just want something that will take nice sharp photos, no matter the lighting.

Any thoughts on a good all around lens for travel, and whether the 70D would be a good choice to upgrade from the T1x series. I could just get the newest in the T1 line because I do like my camera, but for a few dollars more....

 

[bratkinson]

I just want something that will take nice sharp photos, no matter the lighting.

Other than Ivehadmycameratoolong-itus, the answer to your desire is: a 'faster' lens (lower f-stop numbers), higher ISO with good results camera, external flash, tripod, exposure triangle education. Pick any combination of 3 or more.

It's all about light. The blurred pictures you are getting in low light are the result of a too-small of a maximum aperture (should be f2.8 or smaller number) on the lens, which then forces the camera to use a too-slow shutter speed that isn't fast enough to stop subject (or your hands) motion. Getting 'more light' with an external flash is the quickest, easiest solution. A tripod or monopod will improve the hand held-induced blurring. Buying a new camera with improved ISO speed capability is the more expensive solution. A T5i or 70D would be a significant improvement in reduced noise from higher ISO speeds. Faster glass, even a 50mm f1.8 (aka, nifty fifty) would improve low light results as well.

 

[iolair]

To get better results in low light, the check list is
- check your settings. You should be using a wide aperture (small aperture number) and aiming for a shutter speed at least 1/focal-length-of-your-lens if hand-holding the camera (i.e. if you're using a 50mm lens, you want to keep the shutter speed faster than 1/50 s. If you have image stabilisation on your lens you may get away with slower than this, maybe as slow as 1/8 s). Put the ISO as high as you need to get the shutter speed you need - but on your T1i / 500D image quality will suffer badly if you go over ISO 1600.

- check your technique. Are you supporting the lens with your left hand, keeping your camera steady, elbows tucked in while shooting in order to make a stable platform for your camera.

- add light to the scene (open curtains/doors, turn lights on, or use an external flash bounced from the ceiling. I wouldn't generally recommend using the flash on your camera is results tend to be unflattering).

- use a tripod or monopod if there's not a good reason not to

If the above don't help you, you may need to spend money

- get a lens with a larger maximum aperture (1.4 or 1.8) to allow more light in and let you use slower shutter speeds

- get a lens with image stabilisation - this will compensate for small movements you make while shooting

- get a body with better ability at high ISO numbers. A modern crop-body camera will offer a moderate but not great improvement over your current one. Depending on who you ask, the 7D and 70D should provide clean results around ISO 2500 and usable results up to around 6400 (though 'usable' depends somewhat on personal taste).

- get a body with much better ability at high ISO numbers. Unfortunately that means spending more on a full-frame body that probably won't be compatible with all your current lenses. The 6D and 5D mark III are the Canon bodies in this regards.

 

[sm4him]

I was surfing the web looking for camera advice and found this forum. Think I'll stick around a while

I think I'm suffering from something called I'vehadmycameratoolong-itis.

Also known as GAS: Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
Others have already addressed the low-light issues you're having. As to whether to upgrade: If you've got the money without taking food off your family's table, then if you want to, why not?

Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd concentrate on upgrading lenses first. You have NO idea how much of a difference a pro-quality lens can make until you shoot with one. Maybe consider picking a couple of lenses you might be interested in buying and rent them, see what you think of them.
I'd also suggest you work on getting over the whole "don't want to change lenses out in the big, bad, dusty world" issue. Yeah, dust is gonna get into your camera. Get a good cleaning kit and learn how to use it.

 

[Lumens]

I have used a Canon T2i for a couple years and love it. Recently I got into shooting birds in flight. The T2i frustrated me due to the fps (frames per second) being too low. A few quick shots and the camera was stuck processing. THAT gave me reason to upgrade the body so I found a refurbished 7D at a good price. The T2i is likely extremely similar to your T1i and THAT is a good camera still. I found when comparing the T2i with the 7D image quality is a little better with the 7D, but very little - they both still have the same sensor. The main difference is the fps and AF system. To dramatically improve image quality will require better lenses or Full Frame.

So I believe the decision you have is the same as mine. My dream system is the full frame 5D Mk III with a range of L class lenses -> I calculate roughly $10,000 or hold off and improve on my lens collection one at a time. Currently a little goes into the bank each month for the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II Canon zoom lens. Once that is acquired it will be for another appropriate lens.

 

[goodguy]

I will be more straight with you....................time to ditch the old T1i and get the 70D.
70D is a whole new world compared to the T1i, it leaves it in the dust in low light condition, overall its a much, much better camera and I say go get it!!!

Being more of a Nikon guy I will not recommend what lens to get as my Canon lens knowledge is very limited but no 18-200mm lens will ever be as sharp as a more common/smaller range zoom lens will be.
For night photography I only use my 50mm 1.8G prime lens and for everyday I have a standard 24-85mm lens.
Saying I am too lazy to change lens so I want one lens to do everything means you will get one lens that will do everything pretty bad.
If you don't want to change lenses then get a Bridge camera.
DSLR calls for more work and sacrifice but in return you are getting fantastic quality and results.

 

[Lumens]

goodguy has a point. I am always a bit of a tightwad. If you have the cash "Go For It!". If not better lenses might be a better choice. Generally speaking you don't need to upgrade the body unless you need something you don't have with the current body. The T1i is old and the 70D does have some great features especially for video. The low light improvement may be a decision maker as well.

After looking at the features you should decide on the 70D, wait for what surprises the rumored 7D Mk II may bring, or bite the bullet on cost and go Full Frame. How you use your camera is an important factor as well. If you do video the 70D is on top of the list, if not you may want to wait for the 7D Mk II. Some day I will likely do the Full Frame, but finances determine when for me.

 

[cynicaster]

There's nothing particularly wrong with [the T1i], other than I'm getting a bit grumpy at photos being out of focus when taken in low light situations.

I will be more straight with you....................time to ditch the old T1i and get the 70D.
70D is a whole new world compared to the T1i, it leaves it in the dust in low light condition,

I've not used either camera myself, let me make that clear up front, but I'm not sure the 70D is a very good recommendation if this comparison is accurate:

Canon 70D vs T1i - Our Analysis

Sure, the comparison shows that overall the 70D pretty much trounces the T1i, but for the specific complaint leveled by the OP (low light performance), the 70D doesn't appear to have *that* much of an edge. It looks like the main advantages of the 70D over the T1i are its focus system, burst rate, and general whiz-bang features like flip out screen, better video, and a few other things. Almost seems like it would be the upgrade of choice if one were interested in sports photography but not quite ready to go to full frame.

The better approach might be to save up some money for a bit longer and go for a 6D, which is, I believe, Canon's best low-light performer. Not only that, but it's "only" about $500 more than the 70D, which is a fair chunk of cash but isn't the end of the world once you start getting into these price levels.

Of course, then you open up the whole can of worms of needing all kinds of new glass befitting the full-frame 6D.

 

[Derrel]

Canon has not made much progress in sensor performance since 2009...they keep recycling the same, basic 18 MP sensor in model after model after model. The sensor performance of the4 70D is kind of disappointing. Might as well just buy a Nikon D7100, and get the better dynamic range, or get a Nikon D7000, and get better DR, and have money left over, and get with a camera company that actually has state-of-the-art sensor technology in its CROP-sensor cameras AND in its full-frame camera bodies...if you want to upgrade, go Nikon. Or, go Canon 6D, 'cause Canon is seriously lagging in the APS-C sensor category...again, SAME basic 18-MP sensor in five models since 2009, and the 70D has the same 18 MP sensor with 2 million photosites added for video AF detection...but the 70D STRILL has inferior dynamic range and horrible moire when shooting video.

Look at Michael The Maven's "Epic Shootout" of the D7100 versus the 70D...the Canon 70D has HORRIBLE video moire, and as he notes, inferior dynamic range...

 

[texkam]

So you don't know why you are getting sub par photos, but you're ready to upgrade your camera body, thinking that that will solve your problems? So what happens when you drop big bucks and end up with the same results? I would suggest you learn why your photos are sub par. These "super zoom" lenses (Tamron 18-200mm) are not very sharp. This is a trade off you make for the wide focal range convenience. This lens is also quite "slow". Another trade off for the convenience factor and price point. BTW, if you don't know what "slow" means, you shouldn't be upgrading yet. I bet there's a good chance you don't understand the exposure triangle and because of this, I bet you are shooting in some type of auto mode, whether it be a priority mode or full auto. Because of this, your camera is automatically choosing settings that are causing motion blur. Your poor quality optics aren't helping the sharpness of your images, but your main problem is too slow of a shutter speed causing both motion blur and camera shake. Let me ask, do you understand that a 1/60 second exposure is fast enough to to shoot a still subject at 18mm, but not nearly fast enough if you zoom to 200mm? If you don't understand this and some of these other concepts, you shouldn't be upgrading YET. My advice is to learn why cameras work the way they do. I would challenge you to learn to shoot in manual mode. Using auto settings is fine, but you need to understand what the camera is automatically doing and how that will impact your results. Once you learn the basic concepts you'll know if you need to upgrade and whether it will be your glass, body or both.

 

[goodguy]

I still think you should get a new camera like the 70D or if you are willing to defect to Nikon then the D7100 (I have this camera and its AWESOME!!!) but I also agree you really need to know how to work with your DSLR.
Only when you understand how to make good pics will you be able to really fulfill the potential of your camera.
The 70D or D7100 are great platforms but you need to know how to really use them and again get a good lens and not this 18-200mm.

 

[texkam]

the Canon T1i is capable of producing beautiful results.

Karen, share with us your unsatisfactory results (include EXIF data) and we'll help you sort out things.

 

[JacaRanda]

If you are going to decide between a 70D and a D7100, you may want to really look at the entire video Derrel posted.

There are some other things to consider other than DR and moire. Seems to me there are positives and negatives with both.
Actually, you may find that there are no real negatives. One simply does some things better than the other. What is more important to you?

DR - Moire - Burst/Buffer speed - Menu System - Feel - Viewfinder - AF in Video - Thom Hogan? LOL j/k

 

[iolair]

Canon has not made much progress in sensor performance since 2009...they keep recycling the same, basic 18 MP sensor in model after model after model. The sensor performance of the4 70D is kind of disappointing. Might as well just buy a Nikon D7100, and get the better dynamic range, or get a Nikon D7000, and get better DR, and have money left over, and get with a camera company that actually has state-of-the-art sensor technology in its CROP-sensor cameras AND in its full-frame camera bodies...if you want to upgrade, go Nikon. Or, go Canon 6D, 'cause Canon is seriously lagging in the APS-C sensor category...again, SAME basic 18-MP sensor in five models since 2009, and the 70D has the same 18 MP sensor with 2 million photosites added for video AF detection...but the 70D STRILL has inferior dynamic range and horrible moire when shooting video.

I have to disagree on 70D's details - it is NOT the same 18MP sensor - it is a brand new 20MP sensor (and we know that for most people anything over 10MP is irrelevant anyway). And it has 20 million sites added for video AF detection. I would say for people for whom shooting video is important, the AF improvement is a huge advantage over anything the opposition have to offer and more critical than differences in the sensors. For purely stills shooters, of course, it's near-irrelevant.

I can't argue that the D7100's sensor performance at usual shooting ISOs is significantly better in some respects, however whether it's ENOUGH better to justify a change in system (the hassle of relearning an interface and changing lenses) and to overcome the disadvantage of Nikon's inferior (IMHO) user interface comes down to an individual choice.

Of course, anyone who finds low-light performance absolutely critical ought to invest in a full-frame camera and a set of lenses that are f/2.8 or faster (and with IS) - but for most of us, we make a compromise between personal taste, performance, cost and convenience.