Canon T3 vs. T3i

E__

E__

Active member
I'm about to buy a new SLR but I have a couple questions regarding the differences that I hope some of you can help me out with.

I can see the differences written down in the description of the cameras but I want to know how much that affects the quality of the footage/photo (in this case the T3). I've worked with the T3i before and it's great but the price range between the two is $200 and I'm wondering if the T3i is really that much better or if I could get away with buying the T3. +k for serious responses.

I know this could be put in M&A but my questions wouldn't be answered for days.

Thanks.
 
It doesn't take days in M&A... lots of better answers you'd be getting there too.

Go to site discussion and ask for a move, it's not that big of a deal unless it's urgent, for a deal or something.
 
the t3 is shit for video, if you want to save money get a refurbished t2i, it will produce the same as a t3i.

Also, put this in media and arts I check there before NSG any day and there are way more knowledgeable people in M&A.
 
This. Spend the extra $200 for a WAY better camera. A good rule is dont cheap out when your buying camera gear.
 
definitely get a t2i unless you need the tilt screen, it's a good option and shaves off some moola of the price tag for the same quality video...plus there's magic lantern which i don't believe you can get for the t3
 
Why do you say that just a 50mm lens is enough to start with in one thread, and then here you say that a 55-250mm is almost useless?
 
A 50mm is enough to start with. I actually find that it makes you a better videographer due to having to work aroud your lens, instead of just sitting in one spot and zooming in and out on your zoom lens. Just my 2 cents.
 
Because the 50mm will have much better quality (shaper), less expensive, and faster. Your regularr 55-250mm wont be very sharp at all for video and maybe even pictures.
 
It's the other way round, man. Pictures require more resolving power than video.

I'm not saying that the 55-250 has kick ass optics, but I disagree with the statement that it is useless for a beginning photographer/videographer. Some people need to get their heads out of their asses with their recommendations. For me, a tele lens is one of the, if not the most useful lens for skiing. I also started with a cheap 55-200 before I upgraded to a faster tele. I do not regret that purchase, and neither should the OP...
 
they're completely different lenses. i agree with you that a tele is important (bearing in mind i know nothing about video, i'm a photographer) but at least get a good tele, eg the 70 - 200mm f4 (thats directed at OP)
 
I'm still going to stick with the lens I got for now because I'm just starting, and to be honest I don't mind if the quality isn't near as good as other lenses, I'm fine with what I have for my level of filmingl. Of course I'm going to upgrade at a certain point whether it's just a lens or a whole different camera, but for now thanks everyone for the feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top