should i upgrade from my rebel xt???

[islanddboy]

for the past 9 months i have been using a f100 film camera with flash at my job as a photographer for a swim with dolphins program. i have been trained by a professional and think that i am at a amateur professional if not professional level.After falling in love with my job, i decided it was time to buy a camera for myself. my supervisor suggested a nikon because nikon has better image quality and seeing that i was already using nikon at my job, it seemed like a great idea.However one of my friends who was also a professional photographer suggested a canon (rebel xt) because it was a good price and a 8 megapixel camera.At the time i didnt really know the difference between megapixels so i thought to myself ''hmmm...8 mega pixel vs 6 of a nikon (supervisors camera). long story short....i bought the rebel
i bought it with a kit lens and a 75-300mm lens. but i noticed something. from looking at my supervisors pictures i see more detail than the pictures i take and my friend who also has the xt....am i just seeing wrong? i don't think he is that much better than me because our pictures were the same on the f100
not that i dont like the rebel, but i like detail and to me the rebel just isnt showing as much (also i HATE the small fiewfinder because i have kinda bad eyes)... i bought the 50mm 1.4 recently...helped a little but not much.....someone please help me am just seeing things? is there really more detail to a nikon camera? i love the rebel but i'm thinking bout selling all my equipment and buying the d200 or the 70s.....i do portrait photography at the moment and concert photography...what should i do? ....keep the rebel or buy a new camera and if a new one with what lens is good for portrait and concert photography? keep in mind i want detail........sorry for this long novel i just wrote..the opinons and suggestions of anyone who takes the time to read this would be greatly appreciated

[coldrain]

No, there is no more detail in a Nikon camera. The lens you use of course is a big factor. Also, you need to learn to post process your photos. Nikon in the D70(s) sharpens quite a bit. Yu can set your XT to sharpen more if you like. You can also choose to sharpen your photos on the computer. It is ridiculous to think you can not get good results with your XT, just look around to what amzing things others do with their XT/350D.

So... what matters is your understanding of how to post process to your taste, and the lenses you use. Lens choice is more important that camera body.
Without any examples it is hard to tell you what you can do to have more satisfying results. Even your settings and modes you use can be a big factor, but especially lens choice is important (and your 50mm f1.4 is a very nice lens).

About the D70s/D200: the Canon EOS 30D is a much better camera than both for your stated uses because:
The 30D has a much better high ISO performance, needed for concert photography.
The D70s is nothing special, in JPEg it sharpens too much making artifacts.
The D200 is not the greatest for portraits, since it can not handle smooth transitions of skin shades and going from skin to shadowy areas in a smooth way. The 30D (and even XT) are much better in these areas.
You are aware of that for instance the Nikon D50 makes pictures standard more sharp and saturated in-camera, and that you can set your XT to make them more starated and sharp in-camera too? They don't sharpen and saturate them that much because they think the photographer should have the ability to do that on his/her computer to taste and need.

[ReF's temporary account]

i also recall reading somewhere that the nikons you mentioned are factory set to post process more than the XTs, so perhaps this is the difference you are seeing.

the other thing is usually the lens choice, although the 50 f1.4 is already pretty top notch. so this leads me back to the in-camera processing factor

[islanddboy]

ok thanks. like i said i love my rebel, maybe it was just me. is the 70-200 f4l a really good lens? and how does it compare to the 50 1.4 i have now? should it be ok for zooming on artists face at a concert and be sharp?

[pagnamenta]

The 50 1.4 and 70-200 f4 is a great combo. I would replace those with the 75-300 if it's possible and you don't need the 300mm. If you still want a wide angle, the kit lens is a cheap option.

[islanddboy]

ok this picture for example....is it ok or bad?.....i'm open to all to all negative a positive opinions

[coldrain]

It is not the greatest photo, but it does not look bad IQ wise. A bit lacking in "punch", what lens are you using, and what settings in your camera. And do you shoot JPEG or RAW, and what do you do afterwards.

Also, it seems the face is not really in focus. What focus point do you use, or do you let the camera choose it (not a good idea)? You should make sure you focus on the face with people, because that is where your eyes are drawn to and you expect the face to bve in focus, not her neck and shoulders.

[islanddboy]

i used the 50 1.4 , 1/125 f 1.8
so i should not use auto focus then?....i realised that sometimes the camera will say its in focus and when i look at it after it really isnt? should i use manual focus? and what settings would have probably given it that ''punch"

[Rhys]

i used the 50 1.4 , 1/125 f 1.8
so i should not use auto focus then?....i realised that sometimes the camera will say its in focus and when i look at it after it really isnt? should i use manual focus? and what settings would have probably given it that ''punch"

Always use the centre-point for focus and keep the focus locked after focussing.

In JPEG if you max saturation, sharpness etc then you should get a nice punchy photo.

For focus problems, get the ST-E2 or put a speedlight on as that has focus assist. The big bummer with Canon is none of their cameras has a focus assist beam.

[some guy]

Take sometime and learn digital photography.

www.photoworkshop.com has a Rebel XT tutorial by Rick Sammon (pro shooter). It's an easy read. He has some corny jokes and the slide shows are a treat! :)

[Vich]

Most entry level DSLRs (XT included) have poor viewfinders. You would be hard pressed to manual focus it effectively without having the manual-focus-modification applied to the top of the mirror (lines that meet when in focus - not sure if this is offered on the XT). From what I've heard, the XT's AF is also slightly below what it's big brothers (20D, 30D) deliver, albiet still very fine.

AF (Auto Focus) is one of the several important points of justification for the 30D costing double.

That said, many XT owners regularly get great focus (far better than displayed here).

50mm on a 1.6x camera (really 80mm), at f1.8, and the approximate distance of 6 or 8 feet (about what your photo looks like), would have a DOF of about an inch or two. Swaying slightly backwards or forwards would cause OOF, locking focus then re-centering would cause OOF, a very slightly inaccurate AF result would cause OOF.

Try using f4.0 or above, select the AF point you desire (Ref suggested always on center I think as a beginning user's ease-of-use issue), carefully pre-focus on the slits of the eyes, make sure your shutter speed is above 125 (use higher ISO and flash if needed), and even consider using a monopod or tripod if at all convenient, then see your results.

All this would be needed regardless of camera used. Even for film, using f1.8 with an 80mm will give these results. In other words; this looks like more of a lens/technique issue. If you want to use 80mm (EFL) f1.8 careful technique (and more than a few throw-aways) are required.

Also; some lenses tend to be "soft" at wider apertures. This one should be fine at f1.8 I think, but I've noticed mine to be a little soft at f1.4.

Please excuse the re-post, but here is a photo taken with that lens (on my 20D) to demonstrate potential sharpness:

Click here for EXIF data: (http://flashme.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=78990261)
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/78990261-Th.jpg
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/78990260-M.jpg


The big bummer with Canon is none of their cameras has a focus assist beam.Rhys, what a keen observation. I find it curious how the CANON DSLR line is able to focus so very well without that beam. I would presume that the AF Assist beam is only needed in the absense of adequate ambient light, a time when most DSLR users would have a flash attached, or at least have the pop-up flash. My 580EX flash does have an AF Assist beam that I have to rely on in low light conditions. Still, even without that, it's amazingly accurate and I do wonder how.

Do other DSLRs have an Infared AF Assist beam?

[Rhys]

You should know, Rhys has a personal vendetta against Canon.

I require an apology. This is a clearly slanderous statement!

[Vich]

I require an apology. This is a clearly slanderous statement!
Ahhh yes. I have reread your post ("Big bummer with Canon ...") and clearly, you were not slandering the Canon system, nor ranting on and on and on as in previous threads. My brain, I believe, linked them up.

So my friend, my deepest regrets and apologies. I offer my permission to slander me unabaited (queue mental image of low submissive bow). :rolleyes:

If you wish, I will further edit my post to hail your wisdom.

With the appreciation (that the remarks I imagined you making were indeed only in my imagination)

Has satisfaction been met?

[Rhys]

Ahhh yes. I have reread your post ("Big bummer with Canon ...") and clearly, you were not slandering the Canon system, nor ranting on and on and on as in previous threads. My brain, I believe, linked them up.

So my friend, my deepest regrets and apologies. I offer my permission to slander me unabaited (queue mental image of low submissive bow). :rolleyes:

If you wish, I will further edit my post to hail your wisdom.

With the appreciation (that the remarks I imagined you making were indeed only in my imagination)

Has satisfaction been met?

Darn it - now I'll have to put the duelling pistols away and stand down the marshal.

Thanks Vich.

I know I sound off a lot about my likes/dislikes. I don't -as far as I know- say Company X is bad but more show the evidence that what they do is poor.

My problem with Nikon always was that they wouldn't support my AIS lenses. Now they do - they corrected that sad lack.
My problem with Canon is that the XT seems to have been designed with very little idea of what kind of controls a user would desire on their camera.
Essentially I condem the focussing as there's no AF assist and no aid for manual focussing in the screen nor is there a specific screen available from Canon. The other problem is the decision to use buttons rather than a 2nd dial for manual control of the exposure.

[coldrain]

Original poster, just ignore Rhys. He doesn't know what he it typing about, most of the time. The AF assist he means is only used when the camera can not get focus because it is dark. It has nothing to do with your problem.

You can well use autofucus, I was talking about the autofocus point you have selected. Since you do not understand that I think you just are not focussing on what you want to focus on in your photos. Your camera has a number of focus points (you can see them in your view finder). Standard the camera uses all AF points and sort of determines itself what point to use as reference to detrermine something is in focus. You do not what that, unless you are tracking something that moves fast.

So... select either the point to focus on shot by shot, or select the center point and always use that one to focus on your subject with. You can select a focus point my pressing the right top button on the back of your camera. When you look through the viewfinder and turn the wheel, you can see th point selected light up red. Turn till you see the middle one light up.

How to focus with only the center point? Focus on the subject by pressing the shutter button half way. Then keep the button half pressed, if the focus mode is set to one shot the focus will not change when you reframe the picture. Press the button all the way down when you are satisfied with the framing, and voila, a picture with the subject in focus. Same as it would be with a Nikon camera by the way. Or a Pentax.

[islanddboy]

hey guys thanks for your advice...i will try all these suggestions....i will post another picture later tonight or tomorrow and you can tell me if its better....

[islanddboy]

is this one better in terms of focus and lighting? i used manual exposure.....no post processing

[ReF's temporary account]

Ref suggested always on center I think as a beginning user's ease-of-use issue

uh, i think that was rhys. i usually like to select the focus spot closest to the area i want to have in focus, just to make sure recomposing doesn't shift my intended target out of focus. i guess this is just a habit developed from shooting in shallow DOF, where using the center focus spot then recomposing using the rule of thirds usually doesn't work out for me.

i agree that manual focus of moving subjects + shallow DOF is a bit tricky with that tiny xt viewfinder.

Islandboy: that first image looks fine in terms of image quality from the lens. maybe a bit more contrast would help.

the lighting on the second image is too harsh IMO

[islanddboy]

what should be done to correct this lighting in your opinion

[ReF's temporary account]

MADE SOME EDITS TO THE POST

remember that is all just my opinion:

i think the background needs more highlighting, so i'd look for a scene where the out focus background would look more spectacular. it would also balance out the very bright area in shot, which is the face. either that or a similar shot with darker shadows. the bright area of the face and the background seem unbalanced

it looks like the sun is low in the shot, but the light on the face is a harsh white instead of a golden or orangish glow. i'd either try another angle, shoot at a lower exposure, wait for the light conditions to change a bit, or use a fill flash can help even out the darker, shadowed parts of the face if you are going for more even lighting

heavier background blur might help the shot

in post processing you could try to lower the highlights a little, dodge the darker areas of the face a bit

bright colors and lighting + a closeup of an unhappy face strike me as an odd combo

i'd try to get a tad more of his body in the image so that it's not just a head
and maybe move him over to the right of the frame a bit.

alright i'll be gone for a couple of days. hopefully jamie or peter will chime in

[islanddboy]

ok will try all these things. i also have a concert coming up so i'm gonna post them when i get that done

[Vich]

My 2 cents ...

I would pick a less harsh time of day to shoot to avoid the squints and big contrasts/shadows. If you must shoot then, try using a flash or reflector to even out the lighting. I might add a prop such as a fence to lean him against, catch his head at less of a straight-on look. Eyes are the windows to the soul and his are dark, squinted, and hidden. A flash not only illuminates them, adds a little catch light, and generally evens the lighting.

[cdifoto]

Shoot vertical for pics like this if you aren't going to add anything for him to interact with. A straight on headshot with nothing around it doesn't really work.

As for the lighting, underexpose a wee bit for a shot like this. He's moody so the pic should reflect that. The shadows aren't harsh enough to really bother me in this photo. Underexposing a bit would help tone down the bright spots on his left side though (our right).

[islanddboy]

what ya'll think about this one....? excuse my kinda dirty face...i'm painting my room over and just stopped to take a pic

[coldrain]

With dirty face I expected paint splattered all over, and I can hardly see a drop :p.

As far as I can se your camera is performing great, no need to worry about it, you just need to get more familiar with it. Nice photo.

[aparmley]

As far as I can se your camera is performing great, no need to worry about it, you just need to get more familiar with it. Nice photo.

I agree with this 100% - all three images you posted looked just fine to me. The last two seem to have a higher quality to them but thats probably do to quality of light - [read: nice tonal range, not flat].

Don't know if that helps or not. . .

Maybe post processing is where the differences lies.

[Vich]

Yip, looks like you nailed it!

Photo 2 looks much improved over photo 1 IQ wise, however sunlight is just plain difficult (overexposed on one side, under on the other, and shadows in between. You did pretty well with it but selecting / creating better lighting is sometimes the photographer's job too. Harsh lighting has a look, and sometimes it's the look you want too.

Photo 3 it all looks great!

[Clyde]

what ya'll think about this one....?

Wonderful compostition and point of view, very dramatic... However, it looks like the whites of the eye are blown out. Perhaps if you try this kind of shot again, you could use exposure bracketing. Exposure bracketing is a good way to learn about the quirks of different lighting situations. If you are able to evaluate the pictures relatively quickly after a session, you can learn which kind of exposure is better for what kind of situation.

You have a good eye, the rest is just technical stuff you can pick up.

Keep on posting,

Clyde

[islanddboy]

hey clyde thank you i'm still learning.....and learning fast at that.....it would be kool to see u paint this haha..

[some guy]

Keep it up. Looking good.

[Rick M]

I agree that picture 3 looks great. I have a comment about picture 2, though, because I struggle with this sort of thing myself. Do you find that the figure and the background have a kind of flatness, that the background is out of focus but doesn't appear to be that far away. I'll try to find a similar example of mine and post it as well. Any comments?

[islanddboy]

anyone use the 200mm 2.8? is it a good concert lens...is it sharp? how does it compare to the 70-200mm 4 and 2.8?

[cwphoto]

anyone use the 200mm 2.8? is it a good concert lens...is it sharp? how does it compare to the 70-200mm 4 and 2.8?

Responded in dedicated thread.