Nikon D3100 vs Canon t2i vs Canon t3

Juicy-J

Juicy-J

Active member
Ok so im purchasing my first dslr soon, and I was wondering if I should get a refurbished Nikon D3100 + kit lens for $450 (http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.213428000) or a Canon T2i + kit lens for $560 (http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_267070_-1) or a Canon t3 + kit lens for $440 (http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_283215_-1)

I already know that the t2i is the better camera out of all three, but I was wondering because I HAVE A $600 BUDGET if i should get the t2i or settle for the t3 or d3100 + lenses and accessories. I have friends that have all three cameras and I have used all three, but I'm still not sure what i should do. I will be taking a lot of video but would still like to have great photos as well. +K for good advice.
 
the only concern i have with the d3100 is the video mode. the auto focus is kinda noisy and its not the best, but other than that it seems like a great camera
 
oh man...

-Do not buy a dslr for video if you are going to use it's autofocus feature

-Do not buy a dslr for video if you only have $600 or so dollars

-Do not buy a dslr for video

-Do buy a camcorder with good autofocus that wont need 1k+ in accessories to work well
 
i wasnt planning on using autofocus it was just someting i came across when I was looking at the camera. Im also planning on using it for pictures heavily, I just wanted to make sure that it was understood that I will be using it for video also. The reason I want to stay away from camcorders though is that I want to ability to change lenses. And I have $600 now but Its not like I would be spending more on it down the road. I already have basic things (tripod, dolly and im making a steadycam). +k anyway tho
 
Buy a cheaper camcorder (believe me there are plenty that will do what you want them to do even for a good price) and a used DSLR
 
basically my question here is should I get the best camera in my list (t2i) and just use the kit lens until i can save up more for a better lens set up and other accessories, or spend less money and settle on a camera that is not as good as the t2i (but still pretty good) and buy some lenses, a fisheye etc.
 
thats the thing, you don't have the budget to afford either option. and "settling" is something I don't suggest doing
 
just something that i noticed. i might have used it at one point or another, just want to make sure i know what im getting.
 
I got the t2i over the t3 because it takes better action photos. Very happy with quality, don't know about the nikkon. Good luck
 
yeah, the t2i is definetly the better camera, i was just trying to see if getting the t3 would justify itself because i would be able to get accessories and stuff. +K
 
ok nvm im getting a refurbished t2i with the lens kit for $440 at the canon online store. You can get 20% basically any purchase of a refurbished camera for today only. the promo code is SLR712. you also get free shipping with it.
 
I bought the t2i and couldn't be happier. Such a sick camera. I bought a fisheye adapter to my 18-55mm kit lens and also a 50mm 1.8. Go for it!
 
You might want to replace that with a real fisheye like the rokinon 8mm. fisheye adapters don't look too good...
 
i think you said you're going with a t2i, but just be warned you won't be using the autofocus with that either.

If you want to autofocus while shooting video with a DSLR (T2i or any other, barring the Sony cameras), it needs to be BEFORE you press record. You're probably used to the way a camcorder does autofocus, which is smooth, subtle, and silent. A T2i is loud and jittery when it does autofocus. It throws the image way out of focus, then kind of stutters its way to finding correct focus. It also momentarily brightens the image a shit ton in order to perform autofocus. DSLR autofocus is bad in general, so just know that buying a T2i (or most other DSLR's) means losing the ability to have usable autofocus while shooting.
 
thanks for the heads up. Ive been doing a lot of research about this and i think that the t2i is the camera for me. im not worried about autofocus or the lack of autofocus, because ill be using manual focus instead. plus, a $447 deal on a t2i is pretty hard to pass up. Thanks for the information and participating in this thread, +K
 
hey, will and eheath are two solid helpers and have a better reputation than il ever have with video. sorry, I thought I was still at random dude reputation for this stuff. didnt know I had an image to protect.

heres some context about my random bitchery in this thread: I sell cameras for a living right now. Im constantly talking about which camera for which person... I love doing it. However it is inevitable that I get morons at work getting a 5D and asking me where the zoom button is ( true story) or the classic whats better nikon or canon? anyone on newschoolers who sais either nikon or canon is a fucking twat in my oppinion but thats not important.

I also deal a lot with "pro photographers/ cinematographers" who buy a d3100 and shoot on automatic. I have to deal with these idots, not insult them so I dont lose the sale but at the same time want to rip his fucking eyeballs out because assholes like him take contracts away from me with my sideline video services.

Anyways all of this to say, my frustrations come from work and were lashed out at this thread. for that I am sorry. Im flattered to hear im well regarded in these forums so Il try to keep my shit at home and keep my words in here helpfull.
 
Why wouldn't someone buy a DSLR for video? This is not to say someone with a minimal budget such as OP, but I mean someone serious with a real budget and knowledge of cinematography.

Aren't some DSLR's like the GH2 actually better for video than they are for stills?
 
no worries man, i should have said haha or something to show i wasn't genuinely offended. i figured you weren't being literal
 
-a big reason for me is that dslr's are a bitch to use. for the most part, they don't have the video features of a real video camera like zebras, peaking, waveform monitors, etc. yes with magic lantern you can get some and I know the GH2 has peaking and some other things as well.

-dslr's also are notorious for producing horrible moire and rolling shutter while shooting video.

-codecs. i'm pretty sure straight up avchd tends to be better than h.264 which i THINK is just a modified version of avchd. i'm not too knowledgable on that stuff so i don't want to say much

-i wouldn't buy a gh2 for stills. i would buy one for video. it has an electronic viewfinder instead of optical like most dslr's, it's fucking whack to look through for photos, but unlike optical viewfinders, it can be used for video. it also does not have a very well set up body for photos in terms of external controls, etc.

 
A big reason for me would be that DSLR bodies are cheap and you can swap them out when obsolete.

One of my biggest regrets from the past is buying a GS500 camcorder, which was really expensive and completely obsolete after two years.
 
I actually have a GH2, and yeah it does have a form of zebras, as well as peaking. I find that the stills it takes aren't great at all, but I love it for video, especially after I hacked it. It also has noticeably less moire than other DSLR's, but rolling shutter is still an issue.

Also you are correct in that AVCHD is h.264 just inside a Mpeg transport system, so they are very similar codecs, but in my opinion AVCHD is the better codec, especially if converted to Prores as it just holds up so much better in the editing process, and is very noticeable in grading.

I just think that DSLR's have been getting a lot of hate recently, and yet I don't see why. They obviously aren't for someone brand new to filming as it is an expensive investment, but I think someone with the money and skill can produce astounding work with a DSLR, and personally I see them as holding more creative potential than straight up video cameras because of the ability to swap lenses. This is from personal experience as I have worked on both prosumer video cameras, like the Canon XF100, which is the camera one of my friends has, as well as DSLR's like the GH2 as well as 60D

I love them both, and the XF100 is actually much easier to use and yet still produces a fantastic image, but with knowledge and skill I just feel the creative potential of DSLR's is much more, and can produce amazing shots.

 
I know OP already made his choice, but to anyone else looking at a d3100 for the video, DON'T. a couple years ago, being gullable and stupid, bought the d3100 for video. It doesn't have manual video, so you have no control whatsoever over the exposure or aperture or iso. It also doesn't have AEB and so no HDR. Lastly, you can't film timelapses with it, as there is no program to do that. I really wish now that I had waited for the t3i, but now I don't have any money. /rant
 
Lol.

Ever heard of an intervalometer? or Timer Remote Controller?

They cost about 15 bucks or less on ebay, and are far better than any onboard intervalometer, since they give you ability to shoot long exposures without ever having to touch the camera's shutter button...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top