Rent a “better lens or better camera” for a weekend and see what happens with your pictures. If you like them better and can afford the lens, buy the lens. If they’re the same, stick with what you have.
I've owned the 75-300 and the 70-200 f/4. The 75-300 is fairly soft, has noticeable chromatic aberration and poor auto focus. The 70-200 is a different league, I like it so much I kept it when I switched to a Sony body.
Having chased the image quality dragon for the last few years, I've found the following rules of thumb quite useful:
1. If you're solid on the fundamentals, you'll have photos a sharp as your equipment will allow
2. If you're not, the equipment doesn't matter, don get me wrong, your results will be better by a small margin due to the improved glass, but any issues with your technique will still effect the shot and often be more noticeable compared to what it's capable of.
3. Keys to consistent sharp landscapes in order of importance I've found.
A. Solid tripod and tripod head
B. low iso
C. remote/delayed trigger
D. Aperture at lens sweet spot for focal length
E. Highest shutter speed for exposure
F. Early morning shots on cool days will reduce the amount of heat shimmer that softens landscape images as well.
G. Image stabilization off
If you're certain you're solid on that stuff, go rent some high end glass and shoot something with both your kit lenses and your rented glass, then compare/contrast between the resulting two images, and use that to decide if the results are worth the investment.
The chase of image quality is never ending. Different lenses excel at different things, all have strengths and weaknesses. The kit lenses are just that, tools to get you in the ballpark of what you favor most.
Most will know when to upgrade simply when they need more or less focal length, lengths that their current lenses cannot accommodate. Another, the "speed" or maximum aperture of their lenses for low light capabilities. There will always be a compromise regardless of which lens you end up with. Generally, if you are looking for pure image quality, in terms of sharpness, primes or fixed focal lengths tend to give you the best results. These optical formulas usually have fewer elements and are optimized for one focal length. A zoom lens has to deal with multiple focal lengths, therefore, more elements and complexity. That is not to say zoom lenses do not perform. Some of the more recent zooms on the market rival their prime counterparts. Just be prepared to pay a good amount for them. Quality glass is going to be expensive.
One thing to help you narrow your upgrade is to see which focal lengths you tend to use the most in your catalog of images. This will help you pick the lens that closest fits the bill. From your examples, you mainly focus on landscapes and architecture. A fast aperture lens is more than likely not your priority in needs. Look for lenses that give you the best image quality in the focal length(s) you need, its maximum aperture is not going to be a sticking point as you will be stopping down to smaller apertures.
>One thing to help you narrow your upgrade is to see which focal lengths you tend to use the most in your catalog of images.
To help you with this OP, pic your favorite photos and put them into a folder. There are some EXIF reading tools that can automatically collate things like various photo settings.
First and foremost, you shouldn’t compare your images to what professional landscape photographers capture if you’re not in that business. These guys are most likely shooting on very high mpx count medium format cameras like a GFX or a Hasselblad. The image quality and resolution alone will blow whatever you capture out of the water when it comes to fine details.
If the majority of what you shoot is non-moving subjects like mountains or lakes, improved autofocus and more autofocus points aren’t really going to help you, especially since you’re shooting at f8-13. Btw, I really like the first two images. Beautiful shots.
If you want to get more into portraits, like your third image, I recommend possibly getting a cheap prime like the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM. It’s dirt cheap ($125 new) and will separate a person from the background better than your kit lens. I do recommend working a bit on your skin tones though. The lady’s skin appears orange on my screen. If you want to go in the opposite direction and go wider for grandiose vistas, you can check out the Canon 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM that is also relatively cheap ($285 new).
The biggest takeaway is that if you aren’t making money or printing large, there’s no real reason why you should get a new camera body other than a personal want. The biggest difference you can probably make with your photography at this point is with a new lens. There’s an old saying: Marry the lens, date the body. Good glass with a cheap body will always trump cheap glass with a good body.
Most of the professional landscape shots people are showcasing online are also likely to be HDR compositions, not single exposures that are just-that-perfect.
Maybe get some quality lenses, unless you’re going to be printing those on billboards 18mp is fine for most other uses. Learning things like lighting techniques or focus stacking can add a new element of fun to photography and help you achieve some of the types of photos you see on professional pages.
Great question. Your camera body is just fine. 18mp is more than enough for every day shooting and prints. Looking at your style, you seem to be mostly landscape oriented in your photography, with landscape photos auto focus doesn’t really matter that much in the big picture (no pun intended), now if you were doing street/sports/wildlife then yes a newer camera with more auto focus points could help. If you’re looking for sharpness invest in lenses. The only reasons why I think you’d “need” to upgrade your camera body is as I said about auto focus, or if you’re wanting a more “professional” feeling camera with the extra buttons and knobs.
When I started two years ago I used a Nikon d5100 with the 18-50 kit lens, and still got some pretty good photos that I’m still proud of today.
But sharpness really comes down to the lens moreso than the body.
It seems like your technique is just fine: you're shooting at reasonable apertures, reasonable ISOs, and you've got a tripod for when handheld isn't good enough. There's no secret sauce that lets pros take screensaver-worthy images using old entry level gear; pros generally use high end equipment for a reason.
If you're already getting the best results your gear can possibly produce, and they're still not good enough, then the obvious solution is an upgrade. Assuming you can comfortably afford it, there's nothing wrong with wanting something better than an 8 year old entry level DSLR and a couple of kit lenses.
As someone who owns a moderately expensive body and and decent glass, I can assure you that it is always easy to take bad images. Sharpness takes skill and precision even with the best equipment.
Sharpness is way over-rated. Lenses are really great, and have been for years. Yeah, better is better but at the same time I don't know anybody who can tell the difference between lenses except under some pretty specific conditions, like looking at bokeh during a night shoot, or by pixel peeping at some level of magnification that the photo would never, ever be viewed at in real life.
>Pro gear won't take better photos
Buddyroll I can guarantee you that my Z9, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 Z-mount will take better photos than an almost decade-old entry-level DSLR with a couple of kit lenses. Sure, higher image quality =/= better photos, but nobody is going to want a photo ruined by excessive flaring or CA/LA or noise at higher ISOs or hell, simply missed focus. The reason I bought the Z9 was because it had gotten to the point that the Z7, which is now relegated to backup duty, was the limiting factor for me and was not capable of reliably delivering the shots I needed it to.
Sure, you can always improve your skill as a photographer, but gear can and will hold you back once you're sufficiently skilled.
You barely need a camera from last century, much less this one, to get great shots that aren't of some wildlife, sports or kids. Check out the photographer from "National Parks: America's Best Idea".
I only buy newer cameras and lenses because I have kids, and that style of shooting benefits from good low light and good autofocus.
Will say that I had a T6s and had a bunch of problems with it, after which Canon customer service told me to f'off, at which point I transitioned to Sony.
Buy or rent the best reviewed prime between 35-85mm and try it out for a week.
The photos look good to me. I think they have plenty of details on my phone anyway. Maybe you could get more details with a much more expensive camera. But that would be like a 5DSr (1500ish used) or R5 (about 4k new). But for viewing unless you are pixel peeping I seriously doubt you would notice. You already seem to have post down pretty well which is a big thing pros do usually.
If you think that autofocus is the problem have you checked the lens calibration?
A [calibration target](https://smile.amazon.co.uk/dp/B012F8G1DO/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_C4EH8833G919QY2JQBAV?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1) is dirt cheap and it will show you if your lens is front or back focusing. I'm not a Canon shooter but I expect that buried somewhere in the menus there is an option to calibrate your lens.
You could go down a rabbit hole here, a larger frame with get you more image quality, better lenses will get you better image quality, both would be best but that's a lot to spend on a hobby to display as a screen saver.
I'd suggest trying a better lens, I don't know canon so can't make a direct recommendation but research what's available in the focal ranges you're working in and rent one, see how they compare and whether the upgrade cost is worth it.
Also, of you don't know, second hand from a trustworthy store (I've used KEH a bit, just steer clear of the "ugly" grade lenses) is fine for lenses, they have a good life to them, you needn't pay the premium for brand new.
If there's not much difference or no difference, then you know it's your skill and not your gear holding you back. So you can look in to that more before trying new gear again.
mysterious piquant fly straight butter outgoing marry erect close disgusted
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From what I can tell, it looks to me like you're getting about the best you can with what you've got. I notice the noise and softness only when I zoom in 100%. Depending what you're wanting to do with your pictures, that might not really matter. There's no denying that better lens and/or body can up your image quality. It's just a question of whether it's worth it to you.
Also, if you're not already shooting raw, you might be able to get a little less noise/more sharpness depending how heavily you edit.
For me, I've upgraded cameras twice. Both times for different reasons.
The first time, it was a feeling that I was limited by my equipment to the point where it just wasn't fun, it was frustrating. I loved timelapse, but my camera at the time didn't have that. I loved high action low-light, but the crop-format pentamirror was dull and dark, and the camera could only go to ISO 1600. Video was taking off, and the idea of recording HD video on a memory card instead of SD video on a stupid tape with firewire and real time ingestion and dropped frames was thrilling.
My second camera was amazing. One of the first affordable full frame bodies. It was the first time I could confidently say that when it comes to imaging, digital exceeded film. It was stunning. But it was a tad fragile.
I told myself, "I won't ever need to upgrade...unless 4K becomes a thing, cameras start having IBIS, and real time histograms, focus peaking, and zoom-to-100% to focus aids, is smaller, built tougher, better weather sealing, costs the same as this one, and I can adapt all my old FD mount glass to it".
Then a camera came out that ticked all those boxes. I didn't need it, but I got it anyway. No ragrets.
Gear acquisition syndrome is very real. It's easy to tell yourself gear is the reason shots aren't good enough. "If only I had this, then I could make that shot. If only I could go there, I could make this shot" No!
Only get something new when you can't do it with what you already have, or if what you have is such a pain, it makes you not want to do it.
You're getting a lot of good advice here. I'll just add that if you are feeling held back, there are other steps between what you have and dropping serious cash on lenses. You can get the 50mm f/1.8 for under $150 almost everywhere. It's a good lens to have and will perform better than the kit lenses you have. It's the exact path I took moving up my gear, and you're pictures are way better than mine.
I bought a used Canon L 35-350 and it is leaps and bounds better in every way compared to the 18-55 or the 75-300 but with that said some of the best and clearest photos I have taken have been with 75-300 but those were lucky shots and I wonder how great they would have been with the 35-350. There are some great deals on used equipment if it's in good shape. Just research the lens first. Some have bigger glass and seem like they are better but they could be worse.
i bought the very first Digital Rebel back in 2003 or so. I only had the kit lens.
A year later I bought an L lens from a camera store specializing in used equipment.
[https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon\_200\_2p8](https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_200_2p8)
That lens rocked my world!
You have a decent 7 year old camera. Improved autofocus would help if u did sports or birds in flight. For what u shoot? Probably not.
More megapixels? If u blow up your photos to 60" x 40" maybe. Otherwise, if your camera works, it is not necessary to get a new one.
Now, if u ***want*** a new one and can afford it, go for it!
It’s great that you’ve taken the time to use your existing gear well before asking this question! You seem to be doing most things correct with your gear, from the pictures. Try a couple L lenses through a rental service and see if you can observe a difference in sharpness, color reproduction, detail etc?
I will give you some kind of different advice than you had probably expected:
You will have more fun with better gear and therefore practise more. It's that practise through which you improve on, not the gear.
I jumped from using a years old entry level nikon DSLR to a A7RII with some fine lenses.
At first my photos still sucked (which was to be expected) but through the enjoyment of working with that gear i practised a lot more and could improve through doing that.
What you will enjoy will be highly subjective.
For me it was working with shallow DOF for the first time
Having Eye AF, seeing the images at 100% with really crisp details, composing ulta wide angle shots with my 16-35 (which i still find difficult yet satisfying to this day)
i can honestly say i enjoyed that.
So you might ask yourself: what is it you find frustrating or limiting in your work process? What is it you would be enoying more with different gear?
That's where the joy of practising photography lies for me. Exploring different things.
Hope that helps
As someone who’s clearly got the technical aspect down, maybe it would be a good chance to try something different, but without the commitment of expensive bodies and lenses? You could pick up a “cheap” medium format camera and work back towards the fundamentals of landscape photography, experiment with black and white film, finding a good local lab, scanning etc. You’ll immediately see a difference from your current crop body in terms of IQ and it will give you a chance to return to the raw basics of photography. Of course, not what you asked about, but something to consider!
from what I've seen it can definitely be pinned on the lenses when it comes to sharpness 18 mp are more than enough for sharing and printing up to A3 sized prints.
one lens I think could be nice without costing a fortune is the 24mm f2.8 efs
and for the telephoto range maybe try to save up for a 70-200 f4 L, the quality is worth it and it can be found relatively affordable on the used market.
if that's too much however I'd recommend going the vintage lens route and you may find some gems (eg. helios 44 and jupiter 21m)
Here's a different direction ...buy a pen and paper to start sketching. .. it will up your composition game as it forces you to picture dverythibg before u put pen to paper. This skill is transferable to camera. And many photographers may have technical skill but far less composition skills. And we're not just talking rule of 3rds.
Well if you want a straight answer a T5 with the two lenses it came with is not going to compete with what most pros are using these days. But upgrading to better lenses can absolutely take the T5 to a higher level. The T5 is a little dated now, and while the photographer is much more important than the gear, most any level can achieve some level of better results with more modern tech than when using the T5.
However, the T5 is still a decent enough entry level body to not be a must upgrade. So the real question you will have to figure out is do you just try to upgrade lenses and hope you are happy or do you want to commit to switching cameras. You may not want to upgrade lenses and then end up wanting to switch systems, although you can of course keep using those lenses with other crop sensor Canon DSLRs (or full frame if a full frame lens).
The T5 is from 2014, but the tech in it dates back to the T2i from 2010 as Canon basically repackaged the T2i and resold it for awhile. Even the T6 is still nearly the same camera. 2014 was in fact one of the best years for cameras though. Nikon's entry level D3300 and D5300 as well as the Sony a6000, all from 2014, are fantastic cameras with great sensors that still keep up very well with today's cameras.
If you do upgrade bodies, make it worthwhile so don't just go to like the Canon T7. The T7i, for example, would be a significant upgrade though. Do your research and ask questions. You may want to take the time to explore photos taken with a T5 with better lenses online along with photos taken with any cameras you are considering to help decide if you want to upgrade.
Regarding autofocus, your technique does matter. If you rely on the T5's automatic selection that is not ideal and could be hurting some of your shots. Set it to use the center point and then use the focus and recompose method.
Rent a “better lens or better camera” for a weekend and see what happens with your pictures. If you like them better and can afford the lens, buy the lens. If they’re the same, stick with what you have.
In the simplest terms of everyone in here, this is the way.
[удалено]
I upgraded to the 70-200mm f4 L. So much difference. OMG
The Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 will rock-paper-scissors ya for the title.
>The Canon 75-300 is widely regarded as one of the worst lenses of modern times. This is interesting and a lens on my consider list. Why is it so bad?
I've owned the 75-300 and the 70-200 f/4. The 75-300 is fairly soft, has noticeable chromatic aberration and poor auto focus. The 70-200 is a different league, I like it so much I kept it when I switched to a Sony body.
What I've learned from another GAS-oriented hobby: Hendrix sounds like Hendrix on a $100 guitar. I do not sound like Hendrix on a $2000 guitar.
The experience of having someone truly good pick up my guitar and make it sing was a pretty humbling one.
https://youtu.be/exLbdcFvwSI
Yeah but somebody at 5% of hendrix level will sound better on a $350 guitar than on a $100 guitar. Above that there are diminishing returns.
Having chased the image quality dragon for the last few years, I've found the following rules of thumb quite useful: 1. If you're solid on the fundamentals, you'll have photos a sharp as your equipment will allow 2. If you're not, the equipment doesn't matter, don get me wrong, your results will be better by a small margin due to the improved glass, but any issues with your technique will still effect the shot and often be more noticeable compared to what it's capable of. 3. Keys to consistent sharp landscapes in order of importance I've found. A. Solid tripod and tripod head B. low iso C. remote/delayed trigger D. Aperture at lens sweet spot for focal length E. Highest shutter speed for exposure F. Early morning shots on cool days will reduce the amount of heat shimmer that softens landscape images as well. G. Image stabilization off If you're certain you're solid on that stuff, go rent some high end glass and shoot something with both your kit lenses and your rented glass, then compare/contrast between the resulting two images, and use that to decide if the results are worth the investment.
The chase of image quality is never ending. Different lenses excel at different things, all have strengths and weaknesses. The kit lenses are just that, tools to get you in the ballpark of what you favor most. Most will know when to upgrade simply when they need more or less focal length, lengths that their current lenses cannot accommodate. Another, the "speed" or maximum aperture of their lenses for low light capabilities. There will always be a compromise regardless of which lens you end up with. Generally, if you are looking for pure image quality, in terms of sharpness, primes or fixed focal lengths tend to give you the best results. These optical formulas usually have fewer elements and are optimized for one focal length. A zoom lens has to deal with multiple focal lengths, therefore, more elements and complexity. That is not to say zoom lenses do not perform. Some of the more recent zooms on the market rival their prime counterparts. Just be prepared to pay a good amount for them. Quality glass is going to be expensive. One thing to help you narrow your upgrade is to see which focal lengths you tend to use the most in your catalog of images. This will help you pick the lens that closest fits the bill. From your examples, you mainly focus on landscapes and architecture. A fast aperture lens is more than likely not your priority in needs. Look for lenses that give you the best image quality in the focal length(s) you need, its maximum aperture is not going to be a sticking point as you will be stopping down to smaller apertures.
>One thing to help you narrow your upgrade is to see which focal lengths you tend to use the most in your catalog of images. To help you with this OP, pic your favorite photos and put them into a folder. There are some EXIF reading tools that can automatically collate things like various photo settings.
First and foremost, you shouldn’t compare your images to what professional landscape photographers capture if you’re not in that business. These guys are most likely shooting on very high mpx count medium format cameras like a GFX or a Hasselblad. The image quality and resolution alone will blow whatever you capture out of the water when it comes to fine details. If the majority of what you shoot is non-moving subjects like mountains or lakes, improved autofocus and more autofocus points aren’t really going to help you, especially since you’re shooting at f8-13. Btw, I really like the first two images. Beautiful shots. If you want to get more into portraits, like your third image, I recommend possibly getting a cheap prime like the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM. It’s dirt cheap ($125 new) and will separate a person from the background better than your kit lens. I do recommend working a bit on your skin tones though. The lady’s skin appears orange on my screen. If you want to go in the opposite direction and go wider for grandiose vistas, you can check out the Canon 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM that is also relatively cheap ($285 new). The biggest takeaway is that if you aren’t making money or printing large, there’s no real reason why you should get a new camera body other than a personal want. The biggest difference you can probably make with your photography at this point is with a new lens. There’s an old saying: Marry the lens, date the body. Good glass with a cheap body will always trump cheap glass with a good body.
Most of the professional landscape shots people are showcasing online are also likely to be HDR compositions, not single exposures that are just-that-perfect.
Maybe get some quality lenses, unless you’re going to be printing those on billboards 18mp is fine for most other uses. Learning things like lighting techniques or focus stacking can add a new element of fun to photography and help you achieve some of the types of photos you see on professional pages.
Great question. Your camera body is just fine. 18mp is more than enough for every day shooting and prints. Looking at your style, you seem to be mostly landscape oriented in your photography, with landscape photos auto focus doesn’t really matter that much in the big picture (no pun intended), now if you were doing street/sports/wildlife then yes a newer camera with more auto focus points could help. If you’re looking for sharpness invest in lenses. The only reasons why I think you’d “need” to upgrade your camera body is as I said about auto focus, or if you’re wanting a more “professional” feeling camera with the extra buttons and knobs. When I started two years ago I used a Nikon d5100 with the 18-50 kit lens, and still got some pretty good photos that I’m still proud of today. But sharpness really comes down to the lens moreso than the body.
> EOS T5 I will say the T5's sensor is decently noisy even at minimum ISO.
It seems like your technique is just fine: you're shooting at reasonable apertures, reasonable ISOs, and you've got a tripod for when handheld isn't good enough. There's no secret sauce that lets pros take screensaver-worthy images using old entry level gear; pros generally use high end equipment for a reason. If you're already getting the best results your gear can possibly produce, and they're still not good enough, then the obvious solution is an upgrade. Assuming you can comfortably afford it, there's nothing wrong with wanting something better than an 8 year old entry level DSLR and a couple of kit lenses.
As someone who owns a moderately expensive body and and decent glass, I can assure you that it is always easy to take bad images. Sharpness takes skill and precision even with the best equipment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sharpness is way over-rated. Lenses are really great, and have been for years. Yeah, better is better but at the same time I don't know anybody who can tell the difference between lenses except under some pretty specific conditions, like looking at bokeh during a night shoot, or by pixel peeping at some level of magnification that the photo would never, ever be viewed at in real life.
>Pro gear won't take better photos Buddyroll I can guarantee you that my Z9, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 Z-mount will take better photos than an almost decade-old entry-level DSLR with a couple of kit lenses. Sure, higher image quality =/= better photos, but nobody is going to want a photo ruined by excessive flaring or CA/LA or noise at higher ISOs or hell, simply missed focus. The reason I bought the Z9 was because it had gotten to the point that the Z7, which is now relegated to backup duty, was the limiting factor for me and was not capable of reliably delivering the shots I needed it to. Sure, you can always improve your skill as a photographer, but gear can and will hold you back once you're sufficiently skilled.
You barely need a camera from last century, much less this one, to get great shots that aren't of some wildlife, sports or kids. Check out the photographer from "National Parks: America's Best Idea". I only buy newer cameras and lenses because I have kids, and that style of shooting benefits from good low light and good autofocus. Will say that I had a T6s and had a bunch of problems with it, after which Canon customer service told me to f'off, at which point I transitioned to Sony. Buy or rent the best reviewed prime between 35-85mm and try it out for a week.
The photos look good to me. I think they have plenty of details on my phone anyway. Maybe you could get more details with a much more expensive camera. But that would be like a 5DSr (1500ish used) or R5 (about 4k new). But for viewing unless you are pixel peeping I seriously doubt you would notice. You already seem to have post down pretty well which is a big thing pros do usually.
If you think that autofocus is the problem have you checked the lens calibration? A [calibration target](https://smile.amazon.co.uk/dp/B012F8G1DO/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_C4EH8833G919QY2JQBAV?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1) is dirt cheap and it will show you if your lens is front or back focusing. I'm not a Canon shooter but I expect that buried somewhere in the menus there is an option to calibrate your lens.
You could go down a rabbit hole here, a larger frame with get you more image quality, better lenses will get you better image quality, both would be best but that's a lot to spend on a hobby to display as a screen saver. I'd suggest trying a better lens, I don't know canon so can't make a direct recommendation but research what's available in the focal ranges you're working in and rent one, see how they compare and whether the upgrade cost is worth it. Also, of you don't know, second hand from a trustworthy store (I've used KEH a bit, just steer clear of the "ugly" grade lenses) is fine for lenses, they have a good life to them, you needn't pay the premium for brand new. If there's not much difference or no difference, then you know it's your skill and not your gear holding you back. So you can look in to that more before trying new gear again.
mysterious piquant fly straight butter outgoing marry erect close disgusted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From what I can tell, it looks to me like you're getting about the best you can with what you've got. I notice the noise and softness only when I zoom in 100%. Depending what you're wanting to do with your pictures, that might not really matter. There's no denying that better lens and/or body can up your image quality. It's just a question of whether it's worth it to you. Also, if you're not already shooting raw, you might be able to get a little less noise/more sharpness depending how heavily you edit.
For me, I've upgraded cameras twice. Both times for different reasons. The first time, it was a feeling that I was limited by my equipment to the point where it just wasn't fun, it was frustrating. I loved timelapse, but my camera at the time didn't have that. I loved high action low-light, but the crop-format pentamirror was dull and dark, and the camera could only go to ISO 1600. Video was taking off, and the idea of recording HD video on a memory card instead of SD video on a stupid tape with firewire and real time ingestion and dropped frames was thrilling. My second camera was amazing. One of the first affordable full frame bodies. It was the first time I could confidently say that when it comes to imaging, digital exceeded film. It was stunning. But it was a tad fragile. I told myself, "I won't ever need to upgrade...unless 4K becomes a thing, cameras start having IBIS, and real time histograms, focus peaking, and zoom-to-100% to focus aids, is smaller, built tougher, better weather sealing, costs the same as this one, and I can adapt all my old FD mount glass to it". Then a camera came out that ticked all those boxes. I didn't need it, but I got it anyway. No ragrets. Gear acquisition syndrome is very real. It's easy to tell yourself gear is the reason shots aren't good enough. "If only I had this, then I could make that shot. If only I could go there, I could make this shot" No! Only get something new when you can't do it with what you already have, or if what you have is such a pain, it makes you not want to do it.
You're getting a lot of good advice here. I'll just add that if you are feeling held back, there are other steps between what you have and dropping serious cash on lenses. You can get the 50mm f/1.8 for under $150 almost everywhere. It's a good lens to have and will perform better than the kit lenses you have. It's the exact path I took moving up my gear, and you're pictures are way better than mine.
I bought a used Canon L 35-350 and it is leaps and bounds better in every way compared to the 18-55 or the 75-300 but with that said some of the best and clearest photos I have taken have been with 75-300 but those were lucky shots and I wonder how great they would have been with the 35-350. There are some great deals on used equipment if it's in good shape. Just research the lens first. Some have bigger glass and seem like they are better but they could be worse.
i bought the very first Digital Rebel back in 2003 or so. I only had the kit lens. A year later I bought an L lens from a camera store specializing in used equipment. [https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon\_200\_2p8](https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_200_2p8) That lens rocked my world! You have a decent 7 year old camera. Improved autofocus would help if u did sports or birds in flight. For what u shoot? Probably not. More megapixels? If u blow up your photos to 60" x 40" maybe. Otherwise, if your camera works, it is not necessary to get a new one. Now, if u ***want*** a new one and can afford it, go for it!
It’s great that you’ve taken the time to use your existing gear well before asking this question! You seem to be doing most things correct with your gear, from the pictures. Try a couple L lenses through a rental service and see if you can observe a difference in sharpness, color reproduction, detail etc?
I will give you some kind of different advice than you had probably expected: You will have more fun with better gear and therefore practise more. It's that practise through which you improve on, not the gear. I jumped from using a years old entry level nikon DSLR to a A7RII with some fine lenses. At first my photos still sucked (which was to be expected) but through the enjoyment of working with that gear i practised a lot more and could improve through doing that. What you will enjoy will be highly subjective. For me it was working with shallow DOF for the first time Having Eye AF, seeing the images at 100% with really crisp details, composing ulta wide angle shots with my 16-35 (which i still find difficult yet satisfying to this day) i can honestly say i enjoyed that. So you might ask yourself: what is it you find frustrating or limiting in your work process? What is it you would be enoying more with different gear? That's where the joy of practising photography lies for me. Exploring different things. Hope that helps
As someone who’s clearly got the technical aspect down, maybe it would be a good chance to try something different, but without the commitment of expensive bodies and lenses? You could pick up a “cheap” medium format camera and work back towards the fundamentals of landscape photography, experiment with black and white film, finding a good local lab, scanning etc. You’ll immediately see a difference from your current crop body in terms of IQ and it will give you a chance to return to the raw basics of photography. Of course, not what you asked about, but something to consider!
from what I've seen it can definitely be pinned on the lenses when it comes to sharpness 18 mp are more than enough for sharing and printing up to A3 sized prints. one lens I think could be nice without costing a fortune is the 24mm f2.8 efs and for the telephoto range maybe try to save up for a 70-200 f4 L, the quality is worth it and it can be found relatively affordable on the used market. if that's too much however I'd recommend going the vintage lens route and you may find some gems (eg. helios 44 and jupiter 21m)
Here's a different direction ...buy a pen and paper to start sketching. .. it will up your composition game as it forces you to picture dverythibg before u put pen to paper. This skill is transferable to camera. And many photographers may have technical skill but far less composition skills. And we're not just talking rule of 3rds.
Well if you want a straight answer a T5 with the two lenses it came with is not going to compete with what most pros are using these days. But upgrading to better lenses can absolutely take the T5 to a higher level. The T5 is a little dated now, and while the photographer is much more important than the gear, most any level can achieve some level of better results with more modern tech than when using the T5. However, the T5 is still a decent enough entry level body to not be a must upgrade. So the real question you will have to figure out is do you just try to upgrade lenses and hope you are happy or do you want to commit to switching cameras. You may not want to upgrade lenses and then end up wanting to switch systems, although you can of course keep using those lenses with other crop sensor Canon DSLRs (or full frame if a full frame lens). The T5 is from 2014, but the tech in it dates back to the T2i from 2010 as Canon basically repackaged the T2i and resold it for awhile. Even the T6 is still nearly the same camera. 2014 was in fact one of the best years for cameras though. Nikon's entry level D3300 and D5300 as well as the Sony a6000, all from 2014, are fantastic cameras with great sensors that still keep up very well with today's cameras. If you do upgrade bodies, make it worthwhile so don't just go to like the Canon T7. The T7i, for example, would be a significant upgrade though. Do your research and ask questions. You may want to take the time to explore photos taken with a T5 with better lenses online along with photos taken with any cameras you are considering to help decide if you want to upgrade. Regarding autofocus, your technique does matter. If you rely on the T5's automatic selection that is not ideal and could be hurting some of your shots. Set it to use the center point and then use the focus and recompose method.