Time to upgrade

[rojoloco]

My current camera is a Rebel XS. While I absolutely love it, it's not without a fair share of problems. I'm at a point where I can finally get an upgrade but I'm torn between several cameras. After all, specs only show so much. What I'm looking to overcome is:

1) Better low light performance. The XS sucks is low light. Everything gets a green or blue tint to it, everything is blurred, and the amount of noise is unbearable. I want something that will snap "decent" shots in low light situations (i.e. music shows in small venues).

2) Better performance in silhouette type situations. When the sun is behind my subject, all I'll get is a black subject with the XS.

3) Better color range. My XS gives me many blue pixels when editing in raw mode thanks to being unable to detect the shadows properly. It kills an otherwise awesome picture because it has to be edited too much to fix it. It also doesn't capture the true colors of the subject.

I've been looking at specs for the T5i and SL1 but I'm open to ideas. If nothing will fix the above, I'll just stick with my XS.

 

[Designer]

Please note; I am not familiar with Canon products, and I do not consider myself totally qualified to answer your questions, but I see that this post has been up for about an hour with no answers, so maybe my answers are better than nothing.

1. Read the reviews as to how well any of your prospective purchases handle electronic noise. Low light performance also depends a lot on getting the right lens for the application.
2. Look for a camera that has spot metering.
3. Your present problem could be something as simple as adjusting the white balance.

 

[ronlane]

The T5i will be better at low light situations but honestly, I'm no sure that it will handle your wishlist.

Camera technique is going to be a factor in the situations that you describing as well as the post processing (or set up for the situation).

 

[waday]

Please note; I am not familiar with Canon products, and I do not consider myself totally qualified to answer your questions, but I see that this post has been up for about an hour with no answers, so maybe my answers are better than nothing.

1. Read the reviews as to how well any of your prospective purchases handle electronic noise. Low light performance also depends a lot on getting the right lens for the application.
2. Look for a camera that has spot metering.
3. Your present problem could be something as simple as adjusting the white balance.

The T5i will be better at low light situations but honestly, I'm no sure that it will handle your wishlist.

Camera technique is going to be a factor in the situations that you describing as well as the post processing (or set up for the situation).

+1 and +1.

I don't know enough about the T5i to make a judgement. I'm sure you'd get better pictures than the XS. But, I've gotten some fairly decent pictures from my XSi once I started learning better technique.

My camera was capable of pictures I didn't think it was. I, on the other hand, was not capable of them at the time.

 

[weepete]

How much are you prepared to spend?

The older model canon SLR's all have the same sensor in them so performance is pretty similar across the range. For a significant step up in low light performance you'd probably need to look at the 70D, 6D, 5D or 1D depending on you budget. There's other things you can do as well though, a faster lens, suplimental lighting and not underexposing will be the main ones.

But reading your post above it sounds like a lot of your issues are less to do with the camera and more a technique issue.

Problem:

1)Your green or blue issue sounds like a white balance problem, so shoot raw and sort it out in post or set a custom WB at the venue. For the blur it's a simple case of your shutter speed being too slow: you'll need between 1/125th sec and 1/500th sec depending on just how fast your subject is moving. Also if you are hand holding your camera keep it above 1/80th if you can. Lastly noise can be an issue at high ISOs but a camera with really good low light capability will set you back some serious cash.

2) There is a simple solution to this one: you need to even up the exposure between your subject and your background by using a flash or take one exposure for your subject, another for the background and combine in post (as long as your subject is not moving for the latter)

3) Blue pixels sound like you are underexposing and blowing out the shadows because you are expecting too much dynamic range from your camera. Modern cameras tend to capture pretty good colours. I think the problem here sounds more like either a lighting issue (direct overhead lighting can make things flat and wash colours out) or possibly an issue with your editing in post or maybe the calibration on your monitor.

 

[rojoloco]

How much are you prepared to spend?

The older model canon SLR's all have the same sensor in them so performance is pretty similar across the range. For a significant step up in low light performance you'd probably need to look at the 70D, 6D, 5D or 1D depending on you budget. There's other things you can do as well though, a faster lens, suplimental lighting and not underexposing will be the main ones.

My budget is fairly limited but I don't want to throw away cash for something that I won't be happy with. I'll probably put down more than I did last time around just to get something better. I'll research the models you listed. As for lenses, my most common lenses used are my 1.8 50mm and my 70-200 L-series.

1)Your green or blue issue sounds like a white balance problem, so shoot raw and sort it out in post or set a custom WB at the venue. For the blur it's a simple case of your shutter speed being too slow: you'll need between 1/125th sec and 1/500th sec depending on just how fast your subject is moving. Also if you are hand holding your camera keep it above 1/80th if you can. Lastly noise can be an issue at high ISOs but a camera with really good low light capability will set you back some serious cash.

I pretty much always shoot in RAW mode these days. My WB is usually set to auto and then I tweak it in photoshop as necessary when editing the RAW file. I'm positive the blur is shutter speed. I just wish there was a way around it. My ISO only goes to 1600 but the picture is so grainy, it's not even worth editing unless you only ever plan on viewing it as a small file. Any kind of large size is hideous. Sadly, if I attempt to use a lower ISO, it also means using a slower shutter speed. I've seen people snap pictures without a flash while at live shows and their pictures turned out looking much nicer than what my XS was giving. The only difference between our setup was that he had a mode called something like "High ISO" (on his Nikon) that he was shooting in. Surprisingly, the noise on this mode was less than mine at 1600 and the pictures had better color to them. Unfortunately, he knew very little about his camera so he couldn't explain it to me.

2) There is a simple solution to this one: you need to even up the exposure between your subject and your background by using a flash or take one exposure for your subject, another for the background and combine in post (as long as your subject is not moving for the latter)

I figured this would be the case. I was hoping to be in for a pleasant surprise. Darn sun!

3) Blue pixels sound like you are underexposing and blowing out the shadows because you are expecting too much dynamic range from your camera. Modern cameras tend to capture pretty good colours. I think the problem here sounds more like either a lighting issue (direct overhead lighting can make things flat and wash colours out) or possibly an issue with your editing in post or maybe the calibration on your monitor.

I've only ever gotten them outside on partly cloudy days. I typically shoot between either 200 or 400 ISO when it's bright enough but not in direct sunlight depending on how much shade there is and whether my subject is moving or not. I try not to ever go any higher than 800 ISO as the noise becomes too much to edit out when viewed at 100%. I didn't even think about monitor calibration. I'm wondering if it's in my picture or just something with my monitor. I suppose I can always check the RAW file on my laptop as well to see if the problem follows.

Overall, I've gotten some amazing photos out of my XS. It was a huge upgrade from my Powershot A710IS (although I did love that point and shoot). I'm just tired of dealing with these limitations that keep requiring bandaids in post-processing. I'll always continue to learn and shape my technique as I go (as do we all) but I'm very convinced that I'm trying to accomplish certain shots that my camera just isn't capable of delivering.

 

[weepete]

Ok, the first thing to do is stop pixel peeping. A 100% zoom will show up tiny flaws that you won't see at display size. Most people who are not photographers don't care about noise as much either. So try and look at the size that you'll be printing at. If you just need shots for web viewing its extremely forgiving and you can go really quite high before noise is perceptable on the final size of the image.

Bear in mind that Nikons tend to handle high ISO noise better than Canons at the moment. It will also depend on what model of Nikon (the sony sensors in them are excellent) camera the guy had.

You can also introduce more noise in your shots by underexposing and brining exposure back up in post than you'll get exposing correctly at a higher ISO. On the Canon sensors nailing the exposure or ETTR slightly is always preferable unless you blow out the highlights.

However you do have some nice low light lenses already so if you are upgrading and sticking to canon I think you'd really be after a 6D or better.

Just out of interest what noise reduction are you using?

 

[rojoloco]

Unfortunately, I'm into stock photography so I have to view them at 100%. Failure to do so will result in an image being rejected by the reviewers. That's why I'm desperately trying to fix my problem. I've had too many photos get rejected due to the limitations of the camera in the lighting I had at the time of shooting.

I didn't realize Nikon handled itself better than Canon in low light. That's a shame since I'm already so heavily invested in Canon products. I'll read up on the 6D and see what it has to offer in specs.

EDIT: After further review, there's no way I can afford the 6D. The 70D does look like a very attractive and affordable way to break out of the Rebel series though.

As for noise reduction, I adjust the luminance level in photoshop CS6 with the RAW editor.

 

[goodguy]

All current rebel cameras are not very good in low light, so is the 7D Mk1 and 60D which share same sensor as the Rebel line.
The 70D is a bit better but not by much.
So you are left with two options, Canon 7D MkII or the FF sensor Canon 6D
Good cameras but not without their issues.
7D MkII is a good sports camera but not so much as a general use camera (and it aint cheap), Canon 6D has a good sensor but its AF sucks.
Nothing in Canon current line is calling for you I think, of course the 5D III would be a good upgrade but its probably out of your price range.

What to do ?

There is one more option and thats wait for the Canon T6i which is rumored to come soon, it is supposed to have a brand new 24MP sensor.
This might be the camera many Canon users who dont want or cant afford the 7D II are waiting for.
This is all rumors but I have a feeling it should happened because Canon just cant keep selling this VERY old 18MP sensor while the competitors are using the much more advanced Sony 24MP sensors.

 

[Lumens]

I upgrade my T2i to a 7D as I couldn't get enough buffer. I then added a 6D as I could not get good shots in low-light (Outdoors Sunrise, Sunset, and overcast). I find the combination works well for me.

From your statements I would say your best choice is the 6D. Yes I hear the AF sucks all the time, but I am still using it for Birds in Flight and find it does a great deal better than the 7D in low-light. Granted the 7D is king in good light and I suspect the 7DII would be even better, but don't listen to that nonsense about the 6D AF. It's not fantastic but it definitely can do the job.

From what you describe the 6D would be the lowest price FF solution and would get you what you want. It is a bit more expensive, but might be worth waiting for. The 70D is a bit better than the 18MP APSC solutions and I doubt they would fit what you describe as your needs.

The T6i is another story, it has just been announced and is definitely a lot different than previous offerings in the series. I would wait until you can get feedback from someone actually using it to see how it performs before spending. The specs look pretty good and I suspect there will be a lot said about it. I usually ignore the opinions until I see something and photos taken by somebody actually using it.

 

[rojoloco]

The T6i is another story, it has just been announced and is definitely a lot different than previous offerings in the series. I would wait until you can get feedback from someone actually using it to see how it performs before spending. The specs look pretty good and I suspect there will be a lot said about it. I usually ignore the opinions until I see something and photos taken by somebody actually using it.

I just read through the reviews and, while the T6i doesn't sound like anything I'd want, the T6s does. I'm hesitant to get the T6s over the 70D simply because I have a hard time believing a Rebel would be the better of the two. However, the specs alone seem very convincing. Seems like I now have to decide between the 70D and the T6s.

 

[bigal1000]

Get 6D

 

[JacaRanda]

Several people in this forum have the 6D and are happy with it's AF for their uses. To say it sucks is probably not being objective and some people have a hard time being objective here.

All of these cameras mentioned can be and have been good general use cameras; when used properly. Of course there will be tradeoffs. Every single camera has a tradeoff in my opinion. Too expensive, too heavy, lens choice, small buffer, focus points, menu system, feel in the hand etc. etc. Only you get to decide what the tradeoff is!

There is/was a member here Steve5d that got great results shooting (concerts perhaps small venues) from I believe a 5d although it may have been the 5d mII (check prices on those). There are cameras made today that do things better than ever, but that does not mean you have to have one in order to produce good or even great results.

Consider buying used, upgrading your lenses, and learning better technique. The 50mm 1.4 will serve you better than the slow and loud focusing of the 50 1.8.

BTW, the T6I is out and does have a new larger sensor. No clue how it does in low light.

Surf the web and you will see plenty of great images made with all sorts of cameras; even old ones.

 

[rojoloco]

I just took the plunge. Bought the Canon 70D along with the 18-55 IS STM and the 55-250 IS STM. Paid $1,020 for all of it. It's sure to be a huge improvement over my Rebel XS.

 

[Lumens]

Both Amazon and B&H have that camera (Body Only) at $1099 so good shopping! The lenses come free with the camera.

That camera will do better all around for all your needs and it's one of the APS-C cameras that get better ISO ratings. The two lenses give a great range to play with. I expect you are going to love this outfit. ENJOY!