Planning upgrading from t3i

Question

Hey guys!So I've had my t3i for a while and I think I'm hitting the limitations in the t3i in terms of what I'm doing now. I've had the camera for about 1-2 years (was given to me as a xmas gift) and up until now, I've done automotive photography, nature photography, as well as portrait photography. I thought that the T3i was already a good enough camera for me to suit my needs but I realized I might need more now but I'm not sure. One night, I was doing rolling shots with a few buddies of mine and noticed in post processing, that there was a ton of grain in most of the pictures if I turned up the shadows (was shooting in betwen 1/10-1/20th of a second at F8.0 at 3200ISO. What are the benefits of upgrading from a T3i or do I just need a better lens? I was thinking of going to either a T4i or a T5i but at the same time, I want to go for a full frame sensored camera but I don't know if the types of photography I'm doing right now require such an advanced camera such as the 5D MkII  or if the t4i/t5i will be good enough. Also, do the lenses for the T3i work for the 5D MKII or do I have to purchase new lenses for it? I'm guessing the lenses for the T3i are compatible with the T4i and the T5i. Thanks!  

Answer 1

If you "turned up the shadows" on these, they were heavily underexposed... which is pretty much guaranteed to make for a ton of noise as soon as you turn it up in post processing. SHOOT RAW AND AVOID UNDEREXPOSURE LIKE THE PLAGUE. To me your sample shots still look a bit underexposed (nore on that in a moment). In fact, it's often better to overexposure your images a little... I use +1/3 stop for 3200 and +2/3 stop for 6400... then pull the image brightness back down in post processing. This minimizes noise, rather than amplifying it. I hope you don't mind... I took one of your images into Photoshop, lightened it a lot and increased the contrast... then applied Noiseware noise reduction (same "formula" that I use with my 7Ds when shooting at ISO 3200)... then resharpened the image a bit. Normally sharpening will really increase the appearance of noise, which is why I didn't do any more until after applying NR. It improved quite a bit, I think. But would have been even better working from an original, full size RAW file that had not been so heavily underexposed. I also fooled around with the color balance a little.... But there are mixed types of light in the image so, I didn't go to far with this. If it were my image and I were spending more time optimizing it, I'd do a color balance on the main subject and foreground, then adjust the background separately. Anyway, here's the result...   Regarding underexposure... Do you have your computer monitor calibrated? The reason I ask is that most monitors are way too bright to work with photographs, leading you to make too dark images, to the point you don't realize how much you are underexposing them when shot. The first step in calibration is setting the monitor's brightness. When I first got my current monitor 3 or 4 years ago, I had to set it down to about 20% brightness for accurate prints.  Now, after several years use I still have to turn it down to about 50% or my prints and images posted online end up way too dark. I am afraid you might be disappointed with a new camera if you don't resolve some other things first. Don't blame the gear! As it is, you likely aren't getting anywhere close to the best possible high ISO shots out of the camera you've got now. ***********
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER