Will a new camera take better pics?

[CapM]

Hi all. My wife keeps asking for a new camera for Christmas. She is not satisfied with the level of detail on the pics with our current camera (a $200 Canon - SX110 w 10x optical). A friend of hers got a $900 Rebel and my wife claims that the pics she is posting online are awesome.

My wife is a beginner, too. She just basically points and clicks on auto, so maybe she is not maximizing our camera, I don't know. But before I spend a grand on a new camera, I would like to know:

Would the pictures taken from a Canon EOS Rebel 2ti or something like that be considerable better than an SX110? Thank you very much for your insight!

 

[bazooka]

Yes and no. I don't think the quality you are thinking of is going to come through on "pics she is posting online" assuming typical photo size that is used online. Knowledge of how to use a camera, light, and processing are going to go much much further toward more impressive pictures than an expensive camera upgrade. The P&S cameras of today are pretty impressive, although they are physically limited in some aspects due to the small size of the sensor, particularly Depth of Field (how much of the photo is in focus).

If you could provide an example (link only, you can't post other peoples' pics) of the pics your friend is posting and pics your wife is currently taking, that would be an interesting comparison and you'd get a more specific answer.

 

[CapM]

That is a great idea - I'll get the link from her and post back. My wife takes pics at just about every function we go to because she posts it on our family blog. I know that it is sometimes difficult to get a good pic (I took some this weekend for Christmas cards and most were unusable), but maybe it's the user and not the camera.

 

[Big Mike]

I tend to agree with Bazooka.

On one hand, good photos are more a product of knowledge, talent & skill, than they are of the equipment that is used. But on the other hand, even the lowest level DSLR ($500-$600) is going to be vastly superior to most point & shoot cameras.

 

[mjhoward]

Does it come with a new photographer?

 

[CapM]

I'm just a newbie on here, so I'll refrain from using Michael Scott's famous line from The Office...

 

[bazooka]

That's what she said? :er:

 

[Derrel]

Even the old Nikon D40, 6 MP d-slr takes a higher-quality image than a $459 point and shoot, under most circumstances.

 

[ChadHillPhoto]

Yes, the image quality will be better. However it will be most noticeable in prints or files that need retouching...as lower quality images show signs of degradation once printed or photoshopped, quicker than higher resolution files.

But I caution anyone never to buy a camera thinking a purchase will make them a better photographer, as the only thing that will do that is practice.

Good luck, lets us know what you decide on!

 

[MarkF48]

Perhaps looking at some comparison images between cameras might help. Wide variety of images from snapshots to more carefully composed stuff. As others noted, a lot is from the skill of the person behind the camera.

PowerShot SX110 IS
Canon PowerShot SX110 IS Digital Camera Sample Photos and Specifications

Rebel T2i
Canon EOS Rebel T2i Digital Camera Sample Photos and Specifications

Canon G11 (there is a newer model out G12, but less samples on Pbase) Possibly my next P&S
Canon Powershot G11 Digital Camera Sample Photos and Specifications

The whole page where more Canon cameras can be found...
Canon Cameras with Photo Samples

 

[Garbz]

Would the pictures taken from a Canon EOS Rebel 2ti or something like that be considerable better than an SX110? Thank you very much for your insight!

Short answer, yes. They are often of more detail for the same resolution, more accurate reproduction and lower noise. The reasons stem from firstly the larger glass area of the lens projecting onto the sensor (small imperfections have less meaning), and also the sensor itself. Larger sensors (physically) like in DSLRs capture more photons of light. The $900 also goes into far more careful electrical design. Also the benefit of interchangeable lenses means special gear for that special picture. If you buy a 2ti out of the box you still won't be able to take every Xti picture you see on the internet. Some people bolt $3000 lenses onto that little camera.

That said a lot of people thinks it stops there. As the snide comments above may indicate the photographer has a lot to do with the final outcome. I would rather a noisy not quite sharp detail of a wonderfully composed meaningful scene than high resolution, crystal clear garbage.

 

[CapM]

Okay, I have the examples from my wife which compares pics between our current SX110 (or maybe it is an SX120) and her friend's new Rebel Ti. First, she showed me a recent pic she took with our camera, which she says is as good as it gets with ours (I have uploaded it to my profile).

Next, she pulled up an acquaintance's blog. She was comparing our pic with the acquaintance's pic from December 2nd, 10th one down:


The Florida Johnstons


Now, I agree that the Rebel pics are much better than what we get, although not because of the comparison she was using. Our family blog has hundreds of pics, with none of them as nice as her friend's blog. I like the way the Rebel focuses in on the subject, but then blurs out the background. It seems with ours, it tries to focus in on everything in the background, too.

 

[Dao]

After a quick look at the photos from the link, I do not think it is just the Rebel camera. It is the lens that make the different.

 

[mjhoward]

It looks as if they are also using upgraded lighting from the pop-up flash. That pic of the baby on the beach (4th down) would have a strong shadow if they weren't. You can tell in some of the others too.

 

[CapM]

Note: The first pics on the blog (on the beach) may not be the Rebel. Those pics were taken by a friend, so most likely her friend used her own camera...