Why do I sometimes get a shaking viewfinder image in my Canon 550D?

Question

Sometimes I put my viewfinder to my eye before I turn on my camera. When I turn it on, the viewfinder image slightly shakes and moves a bit vertically. This also happens when I look through my viewfinder and press the shutter when the camera has been on, but not used for several minutes.

My camera is a 8 month old Canon 550D and I use it with a Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM lens.

As it happens sometimes, the behaviour is hard to reproduce and hence I can not give you more information about the problem.

Does anybody know why this is happening?

Asked by Bart Arondson

Answer

As forsvarir says, it's most likely the optical stabilisation initialising.

And to clear up one of you comments; In a DSLR you will only see a stabilised image in the view finder with a stabilised lens. When you look through the view finder you're not seeing a picture that have been captured by the sensor first. So any stabilising happening on the sensor is not visible through the view finder.

With a mirror-less camera where you use the screen instead of a view finder, sensor stabilisation will be visible.

Answered by Håkon K. Olafsen

Check more discussion of this question.

Shaking viewfinder image in Canon 550D

Question

Sometimes I put my viewfinder to my eye before I turn on my camera. When I turn it on, the viewfinder image slightly shakes and moves a bit vertically. This also happens when I look through my viewfinder and press the shutter when the camera has been on, but not used for several minutes.

My camera is a 8 month old Canon 550D and I use it with a Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM lens.

As it happens sometimes, the behaviour is hard to reproduce and hence I can not give you more information about the problem.

Does anybody know why this is happening?

Asked by Bart Arondson

Answer

As forsvarir says, it's most likely the optical stabilisation initialising.

And to clear up one of you comments; In a DSLR you will only see a stabilised image in the view finder with a stabilised lens. When you look through the view finder you're not seeing a picture that have been captured by the sensor first. So any stabilising happening on the sensor is not visible through the view finder.

With a mirror-less camera where you use the screen instead of a view finder sensor stabilisation will be visible.

Answered by Håkon K. Olafsen

Check more discussion of this question.

Cannon EOS 550D, Which lens should I purchase [closed]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Which would be more suitable lens in terms of utility, weight, price: 18-135 or 18-55 + 55-200?

I am going to purchase my first DSLR which is Cannon EOS 550D. The seller says it comes with 18-135 mm lens and price is around 922$ and also he offer me same camera with 18-55mm lens for 650$. I prefer people, street, nature, indoor, wildlife, and night landscape photography. If I purchase 18-55 lens I will purchase some telephoto zoom lens later. Which lens set should I select with the camera. Appreciate your help on this selection.

Asked by Prasad Rajapaksha

Answer

When I was in your exact situation I've bought the 18-135 and I'm very happy with that choice.

The extra zoom is extremely useful for photographing people - both for portraits (people look better with longer lenses) and candids (it let me take picture from a non disturbing distance) - the extra zoom is even more useful for photographing kids because they tend to move a lot and the 18-135 range will get you tight or wide framing at any reasonable parent-kid distance.

55mm is way too short for wildlife (I've tried once to use a 50mm lens to photograph animals in a zoo - and I couldn't get any picture that didn't require a lot of cropping), 135mm is actually also too short in my opinion but it will work well in a zoo or if you can get animals to come to you - if you are serious about wildlife you will have to get a longer lens eventually.

Also, the 18-135 is slightly better built, for example it has a non-rotating front element (very useful if you ever use a polarizing filter, commonly used for nature and landscape photos)

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

Beginner lenses for Canon T2i

Question

What are the best lenses for starting out with a Canon T2i while still covering a whole bunch of creative techniques / teaching photography (and also theory) to beginners

Asked by Harsh

Answer

Assuming that your T2i has some lens, that is the best one to start. Learn how to use the camera. Once you have taken a few thousand photos, you will know what kinds of shots you like, what your needs are, and then it will be obvious to you what types of lenses you should get as a second, or third lens.

The "kit lens" on the T2i was the 18-55. Its a cheap lens, but will do the job. Many folks like the Canon EFS 50mm F1.8 as a second lens, its a much faster prime. But if you like to take sports or wildlife photos, you will want a longer telephoto zoom.

Don't hang around photography forums, go shoot photos.

And get a decent post processing software package, such as Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop Elements. Even beginners can do amazing stuff with these packages, an they are all under $200.

Answered by Pat Farrell

Check more discussion of this question.

Photo is not as crisp as expected

Question

During my experiments with HDR photography, I was intending to get some really great landscape shots and I was able to capture this picture.

However, I was expecting it to turn out a bit crisper than the way it came out. I kept my camera settings on to take RAW photos with three different exposures (+2,0,-2). The camera being used is a Canon DSLR 550D with its basic kit lens 18-55 mm. I post processed it through Photomatrix Pro and then Lightroom but I am still unable to get the picture I was hoping to generate while I was shooting this. Any recommendations on where I am going wrong?

Sample Cropped Image:

Asked by Nerds.Dont.Swear

Answer

I shoot HDR images using the same workflow you did (Bracketing > Photomatix Pro > Lightroom) and my images are all crisp, in fact, most of them are sharper than original photos due to overlaying of multiple images. Sot sure whats causing your images to become blurry, but you can try out a few things.

• When taking bracketed (-2,0,+2) shots, use a tripod. This ensures that the subjects in all the images are in the same position. If you don't have a tripod, use your car, a bench, a rock or anything steady to put your camera on.
• Use a smaller aperture (f/8+) to ensure everything in your image is within focus.
• Use Photomatix's image alignment option (if you shoot handheld), so that even if your images are slightly different from each other, the software can correct it. You'll get this option after selecting the images in Photomatix.
• Do not use noise reduction (or use as minimal as possible) if your images are already noise free/have very low noise.
• This particular image you posted looks over processed (dodged and burnt quite a bit). This often compromise sharpness. Play with different presets and settings in Photomatix to see if sharpness has been compromised. Preview at 100% before exporting the final TIFF image.
• Wind is a major problem when shooting bracketed shots. This forces your images to be different from each other and subjects like trees, leaves, curtains etc move a lot. In this case its better to take one single RAW image at 0 and produce -2,+2 using DPP or anything else. This solves the movement problem.

Answered by ShutterBug

Check more discussion of this question.

What factors should I consider to decide if it's worth upgrading to a “pro” level DSLR?

Question

I'm looking at upgrading from a Canon T2i to a Canon 7D. It's available used for half-price from a friend of mine because he purchased a Canon 5D Mark III.

The T2i and 7D have the exact same sensor, so I'd expect the image size, video size, sensitivity to light, etc. to all be the same. However, the faster focus and more focus points, faster shutter, weather sealing, double the FPS when shooting in RAW, top-facing LCD and 100% viewfinder were impressive upgrades to me.

I've always heard that you should upgrade your glass before upgrading your body, and I am also considering getting a new, expensive lens. I have an inexpensive Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, but am considering getting a 70-200mm f/2.8.

In general - and in this specific case - what should I consider beyond cost and specifications in deciding whether it's worth it to upgrade?

EDIT: Sorry for such a vague question everyone, but I do appreciate everyone's responses. I will be using the camera for "burst rate and the ability to sustain it, better AF, and better high ISO response", "professional controls", and so on, so yes it will be "worth it".

This question would have been better suited for "chat", as I know the technical differences and why I'll be using the 7D, I just wanted to hear some opinions and this website isn't meant for opinions per se.

I just wasn't sure if there was any advice from experts that said "No, I should buy a 4-year old camera," "especially if the sensor is the same between the two cameras," and of the like.

The camera is $1799 CDN with a battery grip ($199 CDN) and will be purchasing it for $1000 CDN.

Asked by Brett Alton

Answer

Nobody's actually asking what you use the camera for, so there's no way to tell whether or not the upgrade will benefit you.

I recently bought a T3i to be a second body along with a 7D; buying a second 7D seemed overkill for what I was using it for. Whether upgrading to the 7D makes sense depends on what you're doing with it.

How often do you hit a situation where you can't get the shot you want because your gear didn't cooperate? Are you shooting situations where a high, sustained burst rate would help get the shot? (like motor sports, birds, running animals, etc?). Are you shooting things where improved Autofocus will help you get shots your missing? Are you running into low-light situations where shots are ruined by high ISO noise?

If neither of those is true, then upgrading to the 7D probably won't help you a lot. The t2i does a nice job and turns out a quality image in most situations, and in those cases, I'd be wary spending money on an upgraded body. You definitely would benefit from buying upgraded glass, and that might be a better investment.

From a pure money standpoint, though, if you can get the 7D for half list and it's in good shape, that's a really good deal for a used body like that -- and it might make sense to do and sell the T2i, knowing that in a few years, you can probably sell the 7D again and get a good deal off your friend's willingness to part at a good price.

My guess is that since you aren't explaining technical reasons why the 7D would improve your photography, it probably won't. The image improvement between a T2i and a 7D is noticable but not huge, and you'd see more of an improvement upgrading your glass. Unless you need/want a feature the 7D has that the entry level body doesn't, it's hard to justify doing the upgrade -- and IMHO, the big changes between the bodies are burst rate and the ability to sustain it, better AF, and better high ISO response. If any of those are significant in your shooting, then maybe. Otherwise, seriously consider upgrading your lenses first.

Answered by chuqui

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there a T2i tethering operation from a laptop?

Question

I'll be processing many images of artwork and saving files with various info like title and size and media.

I understand there are tethering options. I'm hoping I can hook the camera up directly from a laptop and record this info with the images directly. If I could also operate the camera, or even focus it from the laptop, even better.

Does Canon provide this out of the box or do I need some special software or cable?

I spotted this but I think all this functionality will be too much and I'd prefer something that costs less($175): http://www.breezesys.com/DSLRRemotePro/features.htm

Asked by kelly

Answer

You should be able to use the Canon EOS Utility that comes with the camera in order to shoot tethered right outta the box. Once you've installed the Canon EOS Utility (on the CD that came with your camera), then a simple USB cable (should have also come with your camera in the box, but you might want to get a longer one if you want to get farther from your camera) will connect the two, and you're off and running...

The EOS Utility will give you complete control over the camera from your computer... Essentially if you can adjust it via the camera, you will be able to adjust it via your computer (shutter, ISO, aperture, white balance,timer, etc., etc., etc.). You can even engage 'Remote Live View' shooting so you can see what the camera is seeing, and remotely take pictures as well as video, should you desire...

Answered by Jay Lance Photography

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does my Canon 550D make a small sound while focusing?

Question

Ok the "noise" I am talking about here is not noise in photos, it's actual small noise/sound coming from camera.

I have been using my camera for around 6 months, but never noticed this before. May be because I have been with people/outside. Last week I was sitting alone at home, and focusing on an object when I noticed small noise from sensor. The noise comes only when I half press the shutter button to auto focus, and stops as soon as I take off my fingers from button. The noise is like a computer fan..but not that loud of course. Should I assume this to be normal?

Asked by vishal.biyani

Answer

The only sound that would come from the sensor itself would be a self-cleaning function, which only happens when you run the self cleaning, or turn the camera on/off. The sensor vibrates to shake off dust. This would not be happening when you are shooting.

When you half press, the sounds you might hear would be from the lens AF motor or image stabilisation (IS). Try putting the lens in manual focus and turn off IS if your lens has it, and see if you still hear a sound.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Does using a different lens affect the dynamic range for HDR post-processing?

Question

I am a bit new to HDR photography and lately I have been trying to carry out the post-processing with Photomatrix. After many trails and errors, I am still unable to get the effect that many other HDR pictures usually have.

Picture Setup:

Canon DSLR 550D: 18- 55 mm lens, three pictures at different exposures (-2,0,+2) - JPEG format - Evaluative mode, 2 sec continous shooting.

Post-processing software:

Photomatrix 4.1.4.

I have three parts to my question:

1) Would using a different lens (50 mm) affect the dynamic range of the photograph and help me in post-processing?

2) If the above is No, is it always related to the proper tone-mapping of the picture to produce the HDR effect?

3) I usually have a cloudy climate around the place I live, should I change any camera settings in order to take a proper picture first with the above settings to get the desired HDR effect?

Asked by Nerds.Dont.Swear

Answer

• 1) No, the lens has very little influence on the dynamic range captured, except in exceptional circumstances, for academic interest only, see this question:

  Is it possible for a lens to produce too much contrast?

• 2) Yes, the look people attribute to HDR is the result of converting a high dynamic range image to a low dynamic range image suitable for viewing. This step is usually achieved by tonemapping. Merging images to HDR is straightforward, there is usually one possible result. Tonemappig is difficult and requires aesthetic decisions to be made. See:

  What is tone mapping? How does it relate to HDR?

• 3) It depends on what your goals are. Often in overcast situations the dynamic range of the scene is not so high that you need HDR in order to capture a detailed image, if your intention is to produce an ultra detailed high contrast unreal image then you can simply apply tonemapping to a single good exposure.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do people say the Canon 550D isn't a real entry-level camera?

Question

I bought a Canon 550D because everyone kept telling me I would be a great camera for beginners. Afterwards, some others told me that this camera is a bit beyond entry-level, more like mid-range or something, and that I could've gotten an entry-level camera for much less. How come the 550D isn't a real entry-level camera, when it's so far behind the 7D except for the 18 MP?

Asked by the.midget

Answer

To be only slightly more fair than necessary to the uninformed, there is a level in Canon's line below the "hundreds" series (or the "i" series in North America). The 1100D (the Digital Rebel T3), and the 1000D (XS) before it, are cheaper and have lower specifications. To those whose experience is limited to big-box and department stores, it may seem like there's a big difference between them, but operationally the difference is very slight. They offer pretty much the same modes and user features; the differences are in image resolution and quality, speed and (most noticeably) price. The "thousands" series is not more beginner-oriented; it's just a way for people on a more constrained budget to get a foot in the door. But both the "thousands" series and the "hundreds" series are entry-level cameras.

Nikon's approach to the same problem (people on a very low budget) was to un-discontinue the D3000 after the better, newer D3100 was introduced rather than to produce a new similar but lower-spec body.

Canon's mid-range camera is the two-digit model (currently the 60D). While it is still rather beginner-friendly when the beginner is interested in learning photography, it does have a few extra buttons and dials that people who just want to step up to a "better point-and-shoot" might find intimidating. Those extra controls mean fewer visits to the menu screen to change settings, but there are still beginner-friendly scene settings and so on to help beginners get the pictures they need to get before they've learned how to do it themselves.

Single digits other than 1 indicate advanced-level cameras. Again, there are more controls to use without going through menus, but the hand-holding for beginners stops at this level. Sure, there are still all-automatic settings, but now you have to go digging through the menus to make the camera do all of the work for you, so the positions relative to entry-level and mid-level cameras are reversed.

Canon has always reserved the number 1 for its full-on professional line of cameras. They're expensive, rugged, and in a lot of ways actually simpler than the entry-level bodies for someone who knows what they're doing (or wants to learn how to do everything with minimal assistance from the machine). But they won't out-guess you or try to figure out what you're doing, so using them effectively means a lot more than charging up the battery and installing a memory card if you've never used an SLR before.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

Canon 550D - Is it a good camera for starters?

Question

I´ve been reading a bit about this camera, and some opinions go that it is too expensive a camera for a simple beginner, while others say it is an excellent entry-level one with enough features to go around for quite a while. So, should I just go for it or buy the Rebel XS or a cheaper one by Nikon? I have just the right budget to go for the 550D with the kit lens (it's only USD 600 on amazon.com), however, I definitely want to get the 50mm lens in the future, and also a good zoom lens. Do you think I should get a cheaper camera plus one of those lenses or just buy a "good" body as 550D is supposed to be and then play around and wait to get another lens?

Asked by the.midget

Answer

I would agree that it is a good camera to start with, though to save some money you might want to go with the 500D, or if you can find it even the 450D? They would leave you the money to get the 50mm lens you wanted.

Between the REAL entry level EOS1100D and the xxxD series, I think that the 550D is not really an 'entry level' camera, but it will be more than usable for a beginner, and as you say, it certainly will have enough features to keep you busy for several years while you learn the craft of photography.

If you are looking to expand your knowledge in the future, I think the 1100D will frustrate you when you start to push its limits.

Answered by Mike

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the advantages of moving from the Canon 550D to Nikon D5100?

Question

What are the advantages of moving from a Canon 550D(Rebel T2i) to Nikon D5100 ?

I purchased a Canon 550D a month ago with a 18-55 kit lens, even before I could become a pro, I am getting an opportunity to replace it with a Nikon D5100 at no extra cost. Not to mention I wasn't very happy with the photographs output that I got but I wouldn't blame the camera as I haven't explored it in detail.

Please don't compare the Nikon vs Canon ideology, I am interested in comparing only these two models with the same kit lens.

Answer

• D5100 was released in 2011, the 550D in 2010
• D5100 will shoot 4 frames per second, the 55D 3.7 fps
• D5100 has a slightly larger sensor (23.6 × 15.6 mm vs 22.3 x 14.9 mm) and 16 MP vs 18 MP
• D5100 does not have an AF motor, so will not use the full range of Nikon lenses (will only AF with the newer AF-S lenses)
• D5100 has a reticulating LCD (flips out) which you might find useful, or not
• D5100 has 11 AF points vs. 9 for the 550D
• D5100 has in-camera HDR (a cool feature I didn't know existed, not sure how well it actually works!)
• I have read (inconclusive) suggestions that the D5100 has less noise at high ISO (you would need to look on dpreview and similar sites and compare test shots yourself, it's somewhat subjective)

I'm not sure any of these are really vitally important. The D5100 is a newer camera, so you should expect it to be incrementally better than the older 550D.

I would listen to the advice in the comments that you are buying into a system/brand, at least once you buy another lens, a flash etc. Makes it expensive to ditch that to switch back to the other brand. So you are locking yourself in somewhat, so beware of going one way or the other based on a few differences between these two cameras.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do lens prices compare for Nikon and Canon?

Question

I am about to buy a new DSLR and shortlisted the two models, Nikon D5100 and Canon 550D. I ready to buy the Nikon model(more expensive) but learned that Nikon lenses are much more expensive than Canon lenses, is this true? I compared the cost of 50mm prime lens from Canon and Nikon and noticed that the Nikon prime lens with motor is almost twice as costly than the Canon lens. However there was a manual focus lens that was of similar cost as Canon. This was very disappointing to me.

Are Nikon and Canon equivalent lenses with built in autofocus motor priced differently? Lens costs are important for me so I wanted to confirm this.

I also have another question :From the Pics that I have seen on Flickr it seems that Nikon Pics have more saturated Color than Canon. Is it true? Will it be possible to take similar Pics from Canon 550D?

Answer

I suspect that much of the reason for the AF lens price difference boils down to this: Canon has always had autofocus motors in their EF-mount lenses, there never was an EF mount camera with a built-in focus motor. As such, they have a lot of really old AF lens models still in production, like the 50/1.8.

Nikon, on the other hand, has always had autofocus motors in their camera bodies. As such, their old lens designs, while as cheap as equivalent Canon ones, do not have built-in AF motors. (No need for one, they could just use the AF motor in the camera!) However, the consumer-level Nikon camera bodies made in recent years do not have built-in AF motors. And it was only when this happened that there was any reason for Nikon to start making lenses with AF motors (excepting some pro-level lenses that had built-in focus motors for added speed and low noise).

In other words, for a Nikon lens to have a built-in AF motor pretty much guarantees that the lens is a pretty recent one. A similar Canon lens can easily be a twenty year old design that is still in production. And new lenses are more expensive than old lenses, that is just how it is. If you compare the price on a recently designed Canon lens, like the 24/1.4L mk II, with the equivalent Nikon lens, the price is not all that different.

There is an upside to having a recently designed lens though: It is likely to behave somewhat better on a digital camera than an old one that was designed to be used with film. So you do get some benefits for the extra money.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to capture detail of craters on the moon?

Question

How can I photograph the moon so that I see detail of the craters and mountains?

I have a Canon EOS 550D (T2i) and tried "No Flash", "P" as well as creative auto mode, but to no avail. Every time I get a completely white moon.

Moon Shot

Answer

I had exactly the same problem when I first tried to photograph the moon: all I ever got was an overexposed white circle.

The answer is that the moon is much brighter than you realise. Also, unless you have a very telescopic lens, it's going to be pretty small in your photo. If you use one of the camera's automatic modes, the camera will try to get the "right" exposure for a scene made up of lots of black sky and a tiny bit of moon. The "lots of black sky" wins out, the camera brightens the exposure, and you lose the detail in the moon.

The best way to capture the moon is therefore to use Manual mode. This isn't as difficult as it sounds:

1. Switch the mode dial to M.
2. Set the ISO setting to something quite low: between 100 and 400 should do it.
3. Set your aperture setting to somewhere round f/5.6.
4. Set your shutter speed to around 1/100s.

Now try a shot and see how it looks. If it's too bright, keep reducing the shutter speed until you start to see the detail of the craters. If you've somehow under-exposed it, just do the opposite: try a slower shutter speed, a smaller aperture or a lower ISO setting.

The main thing is ignore what the camera is telling you! It'll be flashing away like crazy saying your shot is going to be too dark, but just ignore it. We know the sky will be "too dark", but it's the moon we're after. Fold away your targeting computer, Luke. Use the Force.

Good luck!

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I make picture from my Canon 550D more dramatic and colourful, via camera settings if possible?

Question

I have just started clicking with my new Canon 550D DSLR camera and while I'm getting used to its functions and settings, I was intending to get the colours more vibrant while clicking my pictures. Any suggestions on camera settings to improve this picture's colour tone before clicking? If not, could anyone please suggest me the best way to do this via post processing in Lightroom? (I have used exposure settings trying to get the picture right)

Answer

Let's see... When you took the picture, you thought you were looking at something like this:

...and were disappointed to find that what the camera captured was dark, flat and greyish rather than an enhancement of what you saw.

There are two problems with that picture. The first is the difference in brightness between the sky and foreground, which is forcing the earth-bound scene to be rendered a bit too dark. The second is that the colour temperature is too high for your white balance setting (the light is much bluer than your camera is expecting), so the predominant red and yellow tones of the foreground building are desaturated (greyish).

There isn't a lot you can do about the brightness range at capture time. When there is a better, straighter line of demarcation between the bright and dark (as in a landscape with a clear horizon), you can use a split/graduated neutral density filter to darken the bright area selectively, but that isn't practical for this particular picture. It's something that needs to be fixed in post (unless you're shooting JPEGs, in which case your camera may have a setting to bring up the lower midtones and lighter darks).

The second is a matter of getting the right white balance. The presets in the camera only cover a very few common conditions, and "auto" sort of depends on your subject matter being a lot like what the camera expects the "average" picture to look like. A custom white balance using a grey card can help a lot. So can an enhancing filter, which can boost the red end of the spectrum without really affecting the blues much.

I didn't spend a lot of time on the image -- the object of the game was to try to emulate what you saw with the naked eye rather than to make the image "pop". Even at that, though, it took a few tools to get to this point. (I used Photoshop along with Topaz Labs' Adjust 5 and ReMask 3.2 because I have them, but they're hardly the only game in town.) The foreground was processed separately (on a different layer) from the sky, water and the distant shoreline. Both layers had a light enhancement of local contrast and had the exposure adjustments needed to get that part of the image right. I then masked the sky out of the foreground image, allowing the adjusted sky to show through. Unlike a typical overall HDR effect, this masking technique doesn't result in obvious halos.

It may sound like a lot of work, but the "HDR" (local contrast enhancement) part of the job was done using single-click presets, and the masking job doesn't have to be anything like perfect. It's not like I was replacing the background -- I just didn't want the sky to have the same adjustments as the foreground. Total time? Less than two minutes. It wouldn't have taken much longer to make it really pop, but it's your picture, so you get to make the decisions.

Check more discussion of this question.

Will I see a significant improvement from upgrading from Canon EOS 350D to 550D?

Question

I am an enthusiastic amateur photographer and have a Canon 350 D that I bought about 5 years back. I use this with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens, a Canon 50 mm 1.8 mm lens and a Canon 70-200 f 4.0 L lens (with a Canon 1.4 X extender). I like to do some bird photography and also landscapes. I am wondering if my camera body is dated now and if that is the limiting factor for the quality of images that I get from my telephoto L lens. How much improvement in image quality can I expect if I upgrade to EOS 550 D (which I can afford now)? Will the newer sensor and larger number of pixels translate into a noticeable improvement in image quality?

Answer

The difference can be huge or unnoticeable depending on how you use the camera - for example, the faster burst rate means nothing if you never use burst mode or can make a huge difference if you always shoot in burst mode - also better low light performance means nothing if you always shoot in bright sunlight.

You shouldn't be asking if the camera body is a limiting factor - you should be asking yourself what it is you don't like about your photos and then ask here how to fix the problem (and most likely the way to fix the specific problem does not require a new camera body).

But buying equipment is fun, you can always use the specs to rationalize buying a new body - just think of that wonderful full HD video of birds in flight you can make with the 550D (Important note: I believe shooting video of birds in flight with a DSLR is insanely difficult)

BTW: I have the 550D and I love it, I use it mostly indoors at higher ISO than people here are usually comfortable with and it produces great pictures.

Check more discussion of this question.

Which lens should someone who enjoys the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 get next?

Question

I bought a Canon 550D months ago, and at that point I chose the 50mm f/1.8 because it was super affordable and quite popular. I must say I've taken some really wonderful photos with it; mostly with some people in them.

I'd like to upgrade to a second lens that has built-in zoom to take wider pictures. For example, when being in Barcelona, I was unable to take a good shot of the Sagrada Familia because the building was not fitting inside my pics.

Also I would like to take some distant landscape.

What would be the best next lens to get that would be great and cheap like the 50mm f/1.8 but serve a different and complementary purpose?

Answer

Some logical recommendations by price:

• Canon EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($350)
• Canon EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS($550)
• Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM($750)
• Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM($1050)

If you want to focus on wide angle shots, you may be interested in the ultra wide angle Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, which would be suited for that type of photography. If you are interested primarily in long distance landscape shots, one of the fine 70-200mm lenses would be a great way to get into that.

To summarize, I think it is important to note that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens provides a great value or bang for your buck. I am not aware of any other lens that really provides that great value for the money in that price range. You may be able to find something used or second hand that has a great value(utility) to you. The options above are great compliments to the lens you already have, but you have to start to make decisions on what you want out of the next lens, what price range, and what trade offs you are willing to make to achieve that.

Check more discussion of this question.

Which lens to get after an EF 50mm

Question

Hello I've bought a Canon 550D months ago,

back then I chose the 50mm f1.8 because it was super affordable and quite popular, and I must say I've taken some really wonderful photos with it, mostly with some people in it.

I'd like to upgrade to a second lens that has built-in zoom to take wider pictures. For example when being in Barcelona, I was unable to take a good shot of the Sagrada Familia because the building was not fitting inside my pics.

Also I would like to take some distant landscape.

What would be the best next lens to get that would be great and cheap like the 50mm 1.8 but serve a different/complementary purpose?

Answer

Some logical recommendations by price:

• Canon EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($350)
• Canon EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS($550)
• Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM($750)
• Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM($1050)

If you want to focus on wide angle shots, you may be interested in the ultra wide angle Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, which would be suited for that type of photography. If you are interested primarily in long distance landscape shots, one of the fine 70-200mm lenses would be a great way to get into that.

To summarize, I think it is important to note that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens provides a great value or bang for your buck. I am not aware of any other lens that really provides that great value for the money in that price range. You may be able to find something used or second hand that has a great value(utility) to you. The options above are great compliments to the lens you already have, but you have to start to make decisions on what you want out of the next lens, what price range, and what trade offs you are willing to make to achieve that.

Check more discussion of this question.

What do I do with a cracked screen?

Question

I just cracked the screen on my out-of-warranty Canon EOS T2i. It just happened to fall right onto a corner of the foot of a table.

The glass cover for the screen is smashed, but the LCD is still intact.

Since the camera is out of warranty and I'm feeling adventurous, can anyone recommend a place where I could order such a part? All the Googling I did yielded only screen protectors.

Possibly a side question, but are there any screen protectors that could prevent screen cracking? I could just go out and buy something that looks nice, but I think advice from actual users might be more valuable.

Any advice would be appreciated!

Answer

You can get the replacement part directly from Canon for about $30-40 USD. It doesn't seem like an overly complicated replacement either, you just have to be a bit DIY to get the job done without throwing your camera across the room.

I found a tutorial on how to do it for a 5DMK II here.

Once you do replace the cracked protector, I would recommend a Giottos LCD screen protector.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I choose a Canon 550D or a Sony DSLR-A580?

Question

I am planning to buy a Canon EOS 550D with its Kit Lens (18-55 mm) and a prime lens (50 mm 1.8) with my main intention of clicking portrait and landscape pictures. Just yesterday I came across Sony DSLR-A580 and noticed that the features were a bit better for the Sony as compared to the Canon. I referred to this link to understand the ups and downs of both the DSLR's. I have personally used the Sony A580 (with prime lens 50 mm 1.8 and telephoto lens Sigma 18-200 mm) for more than 3 months and I am quite impressed with the quality. I have even used the Canon 550D in stores to get a feel for the quality and in stores I felt Canon was better. I understand that Sony would be a bit more expensive than the Canon with the same setup, but is there really that much of a difference in quality of images and video?

Answer

There's no single answer to this question, because it comes down to a lot of personal factors. However, you won't go wrong with either choice. I highly recommend looking at How much do lens lineups vary across platforms? and considering which system might fit your vision of your working style as a photographer — but not stressing about it too much.

The difference in image quality in an absolute sense is very small. That's because all modern DSLRs offer excellent, amazing image quality, and any debate is between levels of A-grade. These differences are magnified because camera review sites wouldn't get very many hits if they just kept focusing on that positive story — instead, they have a huge incentive to magnify small differences into distinguishing factors.

The Snapsort link you gave provides a good example of this. While Snapsort provides some useful comparison information, one thing it says is that the Sony camera provides "More than 20% better image quality". This is clearly preposterous. The numbers they use — given as the bare "80.0 vs 66.0" — are from some highly-technical sensor measurement scores, which demonstrate some small clinical aspects of image quality, and which barely relate in any way to the actual potential quality of results.

The claim that one model "Distinguishes more than 3x more colors" is also absurd — there's a technically-measured bit depth of "23.8 bits vs 22.1 bits", which both does not correspond usefully to the practical dynamic range of the sensor nor have anything to do with "number of colors distinguished". The higher value is better, but when it's presented as "3× better" that sounds like a big deal — when in reality, it's a difference that humans, even expert humans, can't possibly distinguish without taking careful measurements.

So, yeah. Don't worry too much about these things.

That's assuming there's no deal-breaker lack of functionality for you in one model or another. For example, if you absolutely must have 24p video for a project, this particular Sony model won't do.

Check more discussion of this question.