would uprading to a newer DSLR really improve photo quality?

An Exception said:
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?
Click to expand...

Opps sorry about that

As for modes, I generally use AV or TV, in some cases I use manual mode, it depends on what im taking pictures of.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
all about dem glass to be honest.
3/4 months is nothing for a camera - are you shooting in manual? do you understand rule of thirds/compostition etc etc? are you shooting in raw and PP in LR? (dunno if the 350d even lets you do that to be honest but still) all stuff to really understand before thinking about upgrading the body.
Click to expand...

I occationally shoot in manual, though I usually use AV or TV. Also I know of the rule of thirds, though I could probably improve my composition.
 
To be honest, for me i went from a Nikon D70 to a Canon 5D with 24-70L and didn't see any difference in my photos, it certainly made the photos sharper, etc but that was it, it didn't make me a better photographer.

My option though, for me i still look for images in the same way no matter what the camera.
 
Didmatt said:
To be honest, for me i went from a Nikon D70 to a Canon 5D with 24-70L and didn't see any difference in my photos, it certainly made the photos sharper, etc but that was it, it didn't make me a better photographer.

My option though, for me i still look for images in the same way no matter what the camera.
Click to expand...

Did exactly the same, but with the 24-105L....
I also have a 400D as light weight travel camera. I replaced the original 18-55 lens with a Sigma 18-85, which is much more useful and sharper, so I'd suggest a better lens first.

Re... RAW.... For me it avoids JPEG compression, avoids camera processing, I prefer to do it in software on the PC, so I can apply what I want to each picture.
I have the Canon to set to RAW+JPEG-M... So I have medium JPEG file as quick reference and review before working on the RAW file...

Those who advocate shooting manual as some better form of photography... I assume you use a handle held meter ?? If not why you wasting your time ?

If not you have no more control than other modes.... and some one using Exposure Compensation dial in AV or TV mode.... I use Exp Comp a huge amount... and Auto Bracketing is very handy.

I also like the grid display switch on in the view finder, if it's available. Recently bought a new focus screen for my Contax, to get the grid, which has thirds marked..... They thoughtfully put the autofocus points at the thirds intersection points...
 
Well the crop is definitely tight :) hehe

Something like Lightroom will definitely make life easier as you can learn a lot just by playing with the presets/settings etc.

One example I can show is from a picture I took a few months ago when I first started using Lightroom. The first pic is cropped with a little bith removed but other than that it's pretty much standard. The second version has a simple preset applied which changes the look and feel but also reveals a lot more detail on the tower.

Things like colour/white balance/exposure etc can be changed when you work with RAW files :)


Tower Original by Phal44, on Flickr


Tower by Phal44, on Flickr
 
I could get a copy of Lightroom, but ive looked at the prices and, I may need to save up a bit, lol.

How would it be better than GIMP and UFRaw? I like your photos by the way :)
 
Thanks :) It was one of the first few pics I was actually happy with other than a few of the cat lol

In my experience, anything free/open source like GIMP is harder to use and lacks some of the features that the professional products have. I haven't used GIMP personally so can't say for sure but at first I used Irfanview with the RAW plugin and this allowed me to crop and save as jpeg but it honestly wasn't anything compared to Lightroom. As for buying it, well while I don't advocate this, I'm sure a lot of the people in this world using Lightroom haven't paid for it lol.

If anything you can always download a trial version to have a play with. This way you can decide whether it's worth your cash before you commit.
 
I gain all my experiance on a Canon 400D which is really revamped 350D.
Because of it limitations in FPS, low ISO and sensor size. I had to think very hard how to take some shots !
Low light was all ways the main problem so I purchase a gorilla Pod, learn to lean against walls, door frames, slowing my breathing down etc.

Now I have a EOS 7D which is just great in all aspects. But I still enjoy shooting with it as much as my old 400D.
 
a1ex2001 said:
using the camera to tweak jpeg output to your liking isn't anything like shooting in full auto.
Click to expand...

Alright Ken Rockwell, calm down dear! ;)
My point was aimed at those die hard "any PP outside of the camera is not photography" fools. Maybe the full auto comment was a bit much but some of the crap I've heard them spout is priceless.
 
Learning to use Lightroom will teach you how to be really efficient at processing,cataloguing, sharing and exporting your images and it is well worth the £100 price tag.

Your 350D will produce great images in the right conditions. Keep using it for at least a year and find out where its limiting you and then research a suitable replacement that will cope with your use.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
My comment being :

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.
Click to expand...

Your still implying that he needs to shoot in manual before considering an upgrade which to be honest is bonkers you can spend your entire time shooting AV or TV and have a perfectly good understanding of exposure. Shooting manual does not make you a better photographer or give you better understanding of exposure. I loose count of the number of times people talk about shooting full manual and it turns out all they are doing is twiddling the dials until the cameras meter shows a correct exposure which is much easier done in AV or TV mode!

Shooting in RAW is also not a prerequisite for owning a better camera, plenty of people shoot jpeg with tweaked settings on the camera and then do minimal processing afterwards if required. It was always my prefered option (before the 5dmkii made shooting RAW+JPEG a memory card nightmare) I'd much rather go out and enjoy a day taking pictures and then not spend hours in front of the PC editing them! Even now the first thing I do after a trip is process everything with a standard setting so I can enjoy looking at the photos and then if any really stand out and need further work I'll go back to the RAW.

My advice to the OP get out and enjoy taking pictures, if you want to invest in new gear allways look to lenses first particularly relevant in this case as the non-IS kit lens is a bit of a stinker. Shoot the things you like your way.
 
I downloaded a trial version of Lightroom 4 and, I absolutly love it, ive been taking some simple RAW images and have had a lot of fun processing them and getting them to look how I want them to look.

One again, thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I will definitely look into getting newer lenses rather than buying a new camera. Heres an example of what ive managed to do:


IMG_5201 by roderz88, on Flickr
 
To the OP -

You've got nice enough camera and some lenses that cover quite a range of focal lengths. Sure optically they're not going to be as 'pin' sharp as more expensive lenses, but they're capable of some nice results.

It sounds like you are a relative beginner. It is a cliche on these forums, but I would suggest you purchase a book.

It is called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, which can be purchased for £10 at the moment from a well known online bookshop named after a River :) (Best £10 you will ever spend on photography)

It covers virtually everything you need to know about photograpy, in a concise easy to read manner - well worth it.

I would encourage you to read your Camera manual thoroughly to see what all the settings do and then get out there and take photographs. Experiment with the different settings - see what you can do with them and learn from the mistakes - above all - have fun.
 
roderz88 said:
I downloaded a trial version of Lightroom 4 and, I absolutly love it, ive been taking some simple RAW images and have had a lot of fun processing them and getting them to look how I want them to look.

One again, thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I will definitely look into getting newer lenses rather than buying a new camera. Heres an example of what ive managed to do:
Click to expand...

I would definitely invest in some books, you will progress far more than any camera or lens investment. Most people will recommend something like Understanding exposure but that really just described technicalities which you can learn form the manual more or less.

I would look at getting hold of books on composition, lighting, aesthetics, design, architecture, color, and books by famous photographrs that you like to get a feeling for their reasoning.
 
Personally I don't really want to read a book :/ If I need details on a particular matter I find it online and failing that I just take pictures and keep the ones I like lol. It might not be the quickest way to learn but I'm in no rush :)
 
You might not learn at all without understanding in depth the theory and application. The online resources for most of these concepts are incredibly poor. this is not learning about exposure or aperture, it is about earning photography as an art.

Trial and error wont help you realise why some photos work and others don't and will mean you will always suffer a low keeper rate if you don't understand the constituents of a good photo in the field. You can enter a room and throw darts randomly inany direction and hope you get a bullseye, or you can learn to aim at the dart board and increase your chances
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't give a monkey what people think makes a good photo or not. It's a hobby for me and not a profession so as long as I like the outcome then mission accomplished.

I'm sure the OP can decide for himself whether he needs to go read a book or not :) If there's something in particular you're trying to achieve and you know what it is then reading up on the matter is a good idea but buying books for the sake of it seems like a good way to make your hobby less fun.
 
It is a hobby for me too Phal, but trust me, there are techniques out there that you probably will never have heard of unless you read a book.

Do you know about Hyperfocal distances? Bokeh? Headroom? The Brenzier Method? Diffraction? to name but a few.

£10 is not a lot of money and that book I recommended is very very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom