Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Another T2i thread......

profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
Alright, here it is. I'm sick of filming everything with a go pro, it just isn't cutting it anymore these days. I've been working hard all summer to make moniez, and i finally have enough to purchase a new DSLR. I'm pretty set on the T2i, as I have heard it is a reliable camera and is really worth the price.

-I'm new with the whole DSLR thing. I've never owned one, or even really used one.
-My budget is under $800 (I'm open to suggestions for other cameras)
-Like everyone else on this site, I'll mainly be filming skiing. I also want to improve my still game and take more still shots.

-I'm willing to take time to learn how to use it. Obviously I've put in long hours over the summer so I don't have to beg my parents to buy it, so I'm not lazy.

Do you think the T2i would be a good camera for me? It's not like I'm fully committed to buying it, so if you have other suggestions I'm willing to listen.

And how difficult is it to use/learn for a beginner to DSLR?

Thanks, and again sorry for the T2i thread. I'm just really stoked and want to be sure I don't waste my money.
Jul 29 2012 6:16PM
0 0
profile picture
edai
Posts: 4987 - Karma: 4,653
If you want to be serious at DSLR filming you're going to need quite a bit more money.
Jul 29 2012 6:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
Sorry if I didn't clarify, I meant 800 on the body. And not exactly serious, I'm just sick of using a gopro
Jul 29 2012 7:34PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
A t2i isn't like a gopro, you need more than just the body, lenses, mics, support, it adds up. 800 bucks will get you the body and one lens, you wont be able to do much with that. Check out the panasonic tm900, it will suit you better.
Jul 29 2012 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
Thanks eheath! And yes I get that it's nothing like a go pro. I also know that there is more I have to filet than just the camera body. Im not looking for a camera like the tm900, I'm looking for a camera where I can learn and get into the more complicated areas of photo/videography without being overwhelmed
Jul 29 2012 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
Not filet, get. Damn mobile
Jul 29 2012 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
You don't have enough money to do that. Until you do, buy the tm900.
Jul 29 2012 8:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
Ughhh. I mean I'm not spending any more than 800 on the camera body. Not lenses, not mics. Just the body.
Jul 29 2012 9:02PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
well whats the rest of your budget? just trying to help man, t2i body is like 500 bucks, save the rest for everything else.
Jul 29 2012 9:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
sorry, i was just frustrated cause i had to reply on mobile.
but anyways, i'm willing to put in as much money as needed for a quality set up. I just want to buy a nice camera thats not unreasonably expensive, but still be able to get other lenses and things.
Jul 29 2012 9:09PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
Classic recommendation for you would be this, in order of importance

t2i body - 550? i think
tamron 17-50 - 350
glide cam 2000 -350-450
manfrotto 701 head with legs - 250
canon 50mm 1.8 - 100
rode videomic - 100
canon 70-200 f4 - 600
tokina 11-16 - 600

After you have all of these items, you'll have a very complete setup that is far from beginner. You can add different lenses, mics, tripod, whatever you want, but i recommend a 17-50 and glidecam before you do anything else, maybe a rokinon 8mm for super wide stuff before you can afford an 11-16.
Jul 29 2012 9:12PM
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9297 - Karma: 7,732
literally 90% of my camera setup (thanks to NS) except for the rode videomic I have a dr40 and ntg1.

+ Konova slider, UV/ND filters, and extra bats/cards
Jul 29 2012 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Squeenerd
Posts: 731 - Karma: 186
Awesome, thank you very much!
Jul 29 2012 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
I have a Canon T2i body Canon 50mm 1.8 Tamron 10-24 Sigma 18-50mm 2.8-4.5 which work well for somewhat beginner filming, maybe a little above beginner but they work well. You will want to look into it a lot, because it is an important decision and you'll base your set up off that body for a while. T2I is a great, yet expensive camera.
Jul 29 2012 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
The t2i is not an expensive camera haha oh man, how times have changed. Back in the day when HD first came along, you had to spend 5-6k on a camera that produced lower IQ shot than a t2i with a kit lens (hvx lol). Its funny how much shit has changed. But, still, in the camera industry the t2i is the cheap camera. Appreciate that you guys can spend 1000 bucks and have very high quality images, i wish i couldve got a 7d 5 years ago when i started filming.
Jul 29 2012 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
Well it's cheap as far as DSLRs go and cameras in general go, but it's expensive with an 800 dollar budget and considering he's used to Go-Pros....
Jul 29 2012 10:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
what overall advantage would the tamron 17-50 have over the kit lens for pretty much exclusively shooting at a narrow arpeture? Also manually focussing, I just don't think it seems that worth it to me, and It seems to me everyone just follows what one person said which has led to everyone hating on the kit lens without even giving it a shot.
Jul 30 2012 8:28AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
Well first things first, 99% if not all DSLR Lenses have manual focusing. So the kit lens and the Tamron 17-50 both have AF and MF. The Tamron is also a faster lens so you can let more light in without bumping up iso etc. The kit lens also has a variable aperture which means the widest your aperture can open up, depends on how much you're zooming, this can be a major setback. Also the iq of the kit lens is not nearly as good as the Tamron. I have used both the kit lens and the Tamron, and I absolutely love the Tamron but I hate the kit lens. The kit lens may be fine in the beginning maybe even for like 4-5 months but eventually it will most definitely begin to hold you back. (Also I think you don't understand, The lower the aperture number, the wider the aperture opens. Meaning the Tamron can open wider than the kit lens because it has a 2.8 minimum aperture number when compared to the kit lens's 3.5-5.6) Hope this helped...
Jul 30 2012 8:42AM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Yeah what I meant was I'll be manually focussing, so the faster AF wouldn't matter. When you say faster lens do you mean because it can open to a wider arpeture so you can set the shutter faster? or something else? Yeah the variable arpeture was the main advantage of the tamron I feel, Also the Image quality I can see is definitely better( http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html ), but not worth the extra money in my opinion, as I'm just shooting amateurly.

thanks
Jul 30 2012 9:01AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
I wouldn't really say that the AF in the Tamron is much faster than the kit lens. But yes fast glass= lenses that can open to a wider aperture. While the variable aperture is a setback, I'd say the biggest setback is the shitty slowness of the aperture on the kit lens 3.5 isn't very good at all and 5.6? that fucking sucks. And coming in second place for a setback is the iq, the Tamron's iq is much much better. For $160 more, it's absolutely worth the money. What are you shooting now? in the future? interested in shooting?
Jul 30 2012 9:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
oh, I don't currently have a camera, but I plan on getting one for next season, I'm probably going to be doing mainly followcams and tripod shots, seeing as it's bright on snow would that not be fine? and here in britain it's 250$ more, whereas the kit lens itself is only $80, so that's what's putting me off,
Jul 30 2012 9:13AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
it'd only be $200 more because you can buy a Tamron mint condition used for 280ish if you look hard.
Jul 30 2012 9:31AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
but for follow cams... a 18mm focal length is pushing it....
Jul 30 2012 9:34AM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
really? I would have thought that would have been more than enough,
Jul 30 2012 9:38AM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Debatable
Jul 30 2012 9:40AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
17/18 is wide but its not the same as having 10/11
Jul 30 2012 10:23AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
Yeah I know, but $300 I'd say definitely, if you look hard
Jul 30 2012 11:40AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
Exactly, shake will more evident. Do-able but not super easy or anything
Jul 30 2012 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
You could cop a refurbished/used t2i for 450 then a rokinon fisheye for 300, will suit you fine for filming skiing with your friends til you get more cash flow
Jul 30 2012 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
They sell those fisheyes for less than 300 new now, you could prob get it super cheap used
Jul 30 2012 12:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
i only got 220 for mine :(
Jul 30 2012 12:09PM
0 0
profile picture
chuuch.
Posts: 53 - Karma: 47
Get the T2I. I just got one a month ago and I'm finding it to be an awesome camera and with the body around 500 used/ refurbished and a Tamron 17-50 ($350) or Fisheye (under $300), some kind of stabilizer (I'm using a mediocre tripod) as well as good editing software (FCP/ Vegas/ After Effects) you can make some fine edits. As I better understand the cam, I'm starting to purchase better equipment, handles, mics, filters. If you're interested, make the initial purchase and build your setup up!
Jul 30 2012 12:32PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
i mean, without a glidecam, there is going to he shake. i was referring to the field of view
Jul 30 2012 12:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Oh, you only meant 18mm would be too wide without a stabiliser?
Jul 30 2012 12:38PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
IMO those things look pretty shitty though... You could save up more and get a nice lens that will look much better and be higher quality.
Jul 30 2012 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
To each his own I guess... I've seen a lot of sick fisheye stuff and check out the Sunny trailer, they're using fisheyes now too
Jul 30 2012 1:11PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
no? i was saying 18/17 is wide but not super wide like 10/11 i prefer the 10-15 range for follow cams 17+ gets long (doable and looks cool but tough)
Jul 30 2012 1:17PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
I think the image quality is great on them. The whole fisheye look is something different to shoot with, but not in a negative way.
Jul 30 2012 1:18PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
Is it? I thought they used wide angles mostly...
Jul 30 2012 1:31PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Think again. Pause the first shot and observe the distortion
Jul 30 2012 1:43PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
Wow, I never noticed that, that actually looks good, thanks!
Jul 30 2012 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
gravel
Posts: 5518 - Karma: 42,202
why do you put glidecam before tripod?
Jul 30 2012 8:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
also noticed that...
but actually thats the order i got mine. just happened to find a killer deal
Jul 30 2012 8:17PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,020
i feel like more kids wanna do hand held and followcams more than tripod
Jul 30 2012 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
ButterItOut
Posts: 1094 - Karma: 420
Just wondering, whats the big difference between the XR an HD glidecam? they seem the same other than the HD being better built.
Jul 30 2012 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
gravel
Posts: 5518 - Karma: 42,202
fair point
Jul 30 2012 11:46PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
i think the XR is more similar to the pro series. the HD is easier to balance as well as being better built. I'm not sure on the details so I hope someone else can chime in since I'm curious as well
Jul 31 2012 12:46AM
0 0
profile picture
E-fry
Posts: 601 - Karma: 2,171
I got mine new with a kit 18-55 lens for 615 so the body only must be cheaper than that
Jul 31 2012 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
ButterItOut
Posts: 1094 - Karma: 420
Pro series? an I think your right, but just for those little things its a huge price increase. Its werid....
Jul 31 2012 12:04PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
the pro series is what the xr series replaced i think. almost everyone says its worth the extra cash for the HD. i really wish i had a local camera store where i could try all of these out
Jul 31 2012 1:01PM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
I'm saying at a longer focal length, preventing shake is harder like if you move your hand a little when shooting at 8mm with a fisheye it wont look horrible, but if you're shooting at 300mm on a tripod and your tripod shakes a tiny bit itll look shitty cause the whole frame will move a lot
Jul 31 2012 1:13PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)