What camera do I need?

[leadfoot]

I have several experiences in cameras of all types, but I really want to get into professional photography. I currently own a sony a230 and a canon t2i. I just purchased the canon t2i, I know it is not considered a professional camera, but I thought I would give it a try. I think I am going to return it due to the fact that the images are not as clear as I would like them to be. at 18mp you think the picture would be better than the little 10.2MP Sony that I have, but it's not. The lens has image stabilization, however I feel that the Sony, and Nikon's that I have used just has better picture qaulity. Am I right or am I wrong? Also, what MP is good for professional use?? Looking to buy one real soon, so any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!!!

 

[Light Artisan]

Get a Nikon D3 series, they are over 20 megapixels so they are pro level.

 

[xjoewhitex]

MP determines how large the photo can be printed clearly. The larger the MP the bigger the photos can be. And I have to agree Nikon is where its at.. But my honest opinion you don't need a PRO camera to be able to create pro photos its more the user than the body. If you really don't know much of what your doing, your going to have a very expensive paper weight. Take it slow, buy some gear and tune your skills. Collect some nice glass along the way, those will last you your lifetime.

Ive got an d40x, which is my first SLR that I bought new in 07. Petty much all I need.

How much money do you have to spend on this camera, would be a good question for you. How much do you plan to spend on gear and whatnot?

 

[Josh66]

I just purchased the canon t2i, I know it is not considered a professional camera, but I thought I would give it a try. I think I am going to return it due to the fact that the images are not as clear as I would like them to be.

What lenses are you using with it?

The T2i is certainly capable of doing pro work. Yeah, it doesn't have all the fancy features of a 5D or 1D, but it also doesn't cost $5000.

If all you're using is the kit lens that came with it, I'd say that is likely the source of your frustration.

 

[Overread]

I suspect there are two factors which are leading to your photos not looking "as good" as you think they should and neither one is directly the fault of the camera body nor the lens at all.

1) User error - we can't say if this is or is not a factor without seeing the photos and knowing something of how they were shot - the lighting and also the settings used (as well as the mode shot in). However this remains an often major component in many peoples lack of satisfaction with a camera+lens.

2) Shooting save type - are you shooting in RAW or JPEG? If its the latter then chances are the lack of quality that you are seeing is simply the result of canons auto editing choices over nikon and sony's - you might well find that with a few internal settings tweaks to the JPEG editing settings that you get the shot you want - but you'd be far better to shift to shooting RAW where such settings are not going to affect your final outputted shot from the camera and instead you are put in charge.

I would strongly suggest holding onto the canon and working to improve you results first and formost rather than shifting to nikon. That you've shifted from sony to canon and now are thinking to shift to nikon says to me that you might be being impatient with the gear and not taking time to learn to use it to its full potential - thinking that you just have to keep shifting camera bodies to get "the" best one

 

[leadfoot]

I love my Sony it takes great pictures. I just wanted more options such as more settings and higher MP and got the T2i, plus it came with a zoom lens as well as an extra (something I did not have). I don't do video, so I am thinking that the T2i is focused more on making good video instead photo. I will try the RAW image to see if that helps the quality. I have noticed though on action shots, such as kids playing in the snow that there is blur.

The cameras that I am looking at are the Nikon D90, Nikon D300, Nikon D7000- or the Canon 60D.

 

[leadfoot]

I am using lens with image stabilazation one is an EF-S 18-55 IS the other is a 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

 

[Overread]

Whilst Canon is making waves with video in DSLRs the DSLR itself is far from optimised for video work over stills photography - they are still stills cameras.

Secondly it would help a lot if you could post examples (along with the aperture, shutter speed, ISO and any other shooting details) of the photos where you have blur.
Without them I can't give definative answers, but if you are getting blur that means your shutter speed is not suitably fast enough for the scene. The Image stabalization (IS) will only counter the shake caused by your hands and will do nothing for the motion of your subjects.
In this area I suspect there are three key limiting factors - your availible lighting at the time; your maximum availible aperture on the lens and your usable ISO range.

 

[KmH]

Raw images have to be developed in a digital darkroom (image editing software). They are not usable straight out of the camera.
Professional image editing is done to only parts of an image (local edits) rather than to the entire image (global edits), which is why most pros set up their cameras to record the images they make as Raw data files rather than as JPEGs.

JPEGs are Raw images that the camera has developed (edited) for you by adjusting the contrast, saturation and sharpening based on what the camera engineers decided was appropriate. DSLR's have menu settings that give you crude global adjustments you can make to the JPEG editing done (see page 91 of your T2i Users Manual).

There is no substitue for learning the technical aspects of photography, particularly if you want to make money doing it.

 

[3bayjunkie]

you really dont need bigger than 12 mp unless you want poster size prints. what is most important for a good image is you sensor size and glass quality. nikon D700 would be your best bet

 

[leadfoot]

thanks everyone. I have been working with the RAW setting today and messing with my ISO some and have gotten some better pictures. Still not the best on contrast, but I am going to work on that with editing here in a few. if I can figure out how to post some pics I will be glad to so that you can see what I am talking about. new to this forum stuff so it may take me a few.

 

[Josh66]

Shooting RAW, you'll probably have to give the contrast a little boost in PP. Nothing wrong with that, just don't over do it.

I haven't used DPP (came with your camera) in a while, but there should be a slider for contrast.

 

[tinmann]

well see if you cam gives you n option of saving both to RAW as well as JPEG. thats what i do, and depending on the size of the card you can empty it pretty often. so you still have the pics and still have the raws to play with

playing with the RAW files in Adobe photoshop isnt that easy (atleast for me )


i use a D3100 Nikon

 

[leadfoot]

do you like your 3100? have you used a t2i? i just want to find out all the info i can to make sure i have made the right choice before my 30 days is up for a refund. so far, i am leaning towards nikon, just due to the build and performance i have had in the past.

 

[Overread]

Have a read of this thread here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...forum-functions-pictoral-guide-using-tpf.html

And see if you can post some examples to the forum of your shots with the canon. I still strongly think that if you change to nikon you won't solve your problem at all. You need to address the blur issue in the photos first. From there I'd be more inclined to say save your money and start to invest in lighting and lenses for your sony or canon setups instead of jumping ship to another camera company (there is nothing wrong with Nikon - there again there is nothing wrong with sony or canon either)