would uprading to a newer DSLR really improve photo quality?

Dj_Jestar · 14 Nov 2012 at 12:58

Lets you adjust the image(s) before "committing" them to JPEG or whatever. Within RAW files is the actual data taken from the sensor, where as in JPEG it is just an image.

Things like white-balance and colour space can be changed on a RAW, before it becomes an image. When editing JPG/PNG/etc you manipulate the image and lose quality.

jaybee · 14 Nov 2012 at 13:04

roderz88 said:
Sorry if this sounds daft, but what does shooting in RAW do? what are the benefits?

Based on this question alone kind of answers your original question. If you don't know the answer to the above, I'd say you are not ready to start thinking about upgrading as your knowledge and skills are the bottleneck at the moment.
The 350d is a great camera. I'd keep at your hobby for a while with it.

randal · 14 Nov 2012 at 13:05

Personally, (and I say this because I've just talked myself out of several purchases) I'd wait until you've outgrown your setup before splashing any more money at it.

If you feel you really must scratch the buy something itch, buy a 50mm 1.8 prime (£75). It's sharp as anything, and takes some awesome pics. The 17-55 is capable of taking some great pictures, so with a prime you'd have a great selection of lenses to get comfortable with before shelling out serious money.

In answer to your question, I've just moved from a 400D to a 500D (broke my 400D and the 500D came up at a great price) and I noticed a big difference in picture quality but I don't know if I would have been happy with the upgrade if I hadn't needed to replace a broken camera.

AHarvey · 14 Nov 2012 at 13:18

Only really upgrade when you feel your are actually limited by your kit, for me it was evening photos with a d60 that made me leap to the D700.

Also, don't forget about maybe spending some money on courses or 1 to 1 tuition, to start with this will result in much better improvements!

JBuk · 14 Nov 2012 at 13:33

If you have the cash then go for it, you might not improve your photography skills by having new kit but it may give you incentive to practice more and it's always nice to have new toys

An Exception · 14 Nov 2012 at 13:56

Phal said:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-650D-vs-Canon_EOS_350D

Gives you some idea of what you're missing compared to the 650d - 2.5x Resolution/Better screen + Viewfinder/Better lowlight and better FPS.

If you're taking daytime shots and don't crop in too much then the quality won't be much different

To be frank the supposed ISO improvement is 0.2 stops, that is practically NOTHING, and certainly not a reason to upgrade a camera.

Op, unfortunately even though your 350D is very old, Canon have done almost nothing to improve their sensors since the 350D.
So now your in a position where one would expect a big jump in improvement in all areas, but unfortunately that isn't to be. Apparently the 650D doesn't cripple it's pixel count with a strong AA filter, so at least resolution is one tangible benefit, but the lenses your using need to be of good quality to realise that benefit.

My advice would be to ged a 5d1 or 5d2 or switch camps if you want a better sensor.

PistolPete · 14 Nov 2012 at 13:59

roderz88 said:
Sorry if this sounds daft, but what does shooting in RAW do? what are the benefits?

Google "RAW vs JPEG" and you will find 1000's of pages dedicated to it.
There is definately a place for both, but in many cases the benefits of shooting RAW outweigh the need to shoot JPEG.

Ignore the whole "get it right in camera and shoot JPEG" arguments as they are moot points really and simply offload part of the RAW process to the camera and let it decide - they might as well have shot in full auto mode!

What worked for me:
Get hold of a copy of Lightroom, shoot RAW and get out of full auto modes into AV or TV modes to start with and progress into full manual when you require it. I shoot 75% of the time in AV mode, 20% in TV mode and about 5% full manual now and this is shifting slowly towards more manual and less AV mode as my skills increase. I'm relatively confident now in natural light so I've started the battle with flash!

randal · 14 Nov 2012 at 14:00

Noob question here on the technicalities, but how do you work out the improvement in stops between two camera models?

a1ex2001 · 14 Nov 2012 at 14:40

iamtheoneneo said:
are you shooting in manual?

all stuff to really understand before thinking about upgrading the body.

PistolPete said:
Ignore the whole "get it right in camera and shoot JPEG" arguments as they are moot points really and simply offload part of the RAW process to the camera and let it decide - they might as well have shot in full auto mode!

Two of the most ridiculous comments I've seen on here in a while, shooting full manual isn't some badge of honour that makes you a pro tog and using the camera to tweak jpeg output to your liking isn't anything like shooting in full auto.

Really sometimes people :mad:

An Exception · 14 Nov 2012 at 14:43

randal24 said:
Noob question here on the technicalities, but how do you work out the improvement in stops between two camera models?

If your comparing DXO mark. To get one full stop ISO improvement, you would need double the score.

Phal · 14 Nov 2012 at 15:15

An Exception said:
To be frank the supposed ISO improvement is 0.2 stops, that is practically NOTHING, and certainly not a reason to upgrade a camera.

It seems to say that the 350D has a max ISO of 1600 though as opposed to 12800 on the 650d.

Whether you'd want to use 12800 is another matter but the rest of the ISO range is definitely useful to have. Is the 350D really limited to 1600?

Dj_Jestar · 14 Nov 2012 at 15:23

edit: Nope, nevermind.

An Exception · 14 Nov 2012 at 15:31

Phal said:
It seems to say that the 350D has a max ISO of 1600 though as opposed to 12800 on the 650d.

Whether you'd want to use 12800 is another matter but the rest of the ISO range is definitely useful to have. Is the 350D really limited to 1600?

The point is that if you want better ISO quality (not quantity), the 650D is basically a sidegrade compared to the 350D.

You can program a camera's firmware to have infinite ISO, but it means little if it doesn't have a sensor that can back it up.

Edit:

Op may as well save himself a few quid and get a 40D.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/813%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/801%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/180%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

iamtheoneneo · 14 Nov 2012 at 15:39

a1ex2001 said:
Two of the most ridiculous comments I've seen on here in a while, shooting full manual isn't some badge of honour that makes you a pro tog

Really sometimes people

don't be reem, if your shooting in full auto there is no way you understand light in the slightest your just pointing and shooting. and given photography is pretty much about understanding light then your already not establishing the basics.
Metering in cameras whilst good, isnt perfect on many occasions there's a clear need to understanding exposure correctly - and the only way to control exposure properly is in guess what mode? oh yeh MANUAL !

I never once claimed it would make you a pro photographer - that's your assumptions.So get mad all you want.

An Exception · 14 Nov 2012 at 15:50

I would leave out words like retarded if I was you.
Also do you have a flickr or gallery we can look at, I love looking at pro's work. You know the people who only use full manual and really understand exposure.

Edit:
Btw I used to use full manual all the time, but I realised I wasn't pro enough when I discovered the wonders of Av mode, now I no longer chimp like a chump.

roderz88 · 14 Nov 2012 at 16:00

An Exception said:
I would leave out words like retarded if I was you.
Also do you have a flickr or gallery we can look at, I love looking at pro's work. You know the people who only use full manual and really understand exposure.

Edit:
Btw I used to use full manual all the time, but I realised I wasn't pro enough when I discovered the wonders of Av mode, now I no longer chimp like a chump.

My flickr account is roderz88, but Ive just been doing it as a hobby, im not a pro

iamtheoneneo · 14 Nov 2012 at 16:05

An Exception said:
Btw I used to use full manual all the time, but I realised I wasn't pro enough when I discovered the wonders of Av mode, now I no longer chimp like a chump.

completely not what i'm saying. av mode is very different to full auto as well and you know it.

An Exception · 14 Nov 2012 at 16:22

^^^
Not if your only concern is exposure.

An Exception · 14 Nov 2012 at 16:27

roderz88 said:
My flickr account is roderz88, but Ive just been doing it as a hobby, im not a pro

Thanks bud but I wasn't actually referring to you, although you have some nice work. I think you could benefit from some raw processing software like lightroom.
Just remember not to take your editing too far. Often subtle edits look better and are much more timeless.

Also have you stated what camera mode you use in this thread, from reading 'iamtheoneneo' comment, I'm assuming you must have already stated your using P (professional) mode, or sometimes referenced to as green box mode?

iamtheoneneo · 14 Nov 2012 at 17:35

My comment being :

iamtheoneneo said:
are you shooting in manual?

It was a question he never answered. I was inquiring then a1ex2001 decided to make it about being a pro and then you decided to jump in without clearly reading what I had originally asked.
As eloquently put by someone else in this thread, the OP is yet to learn about RAW so if your not sure about all the benefits/features on what your current camera can do, upgrading could potentially be a little needless at this time.