[littleloopy15]

So I am just wondering what are the differences between the T1, T2, T3, T1i, T2i and T3i. Basically I want to know which is the best bang for it buck and what the "i" means and why it's more expensive. Also what a good lens for the one you think is the best (a specific lens please) and links help. Lastly how much the camera you pick is going for used/new nowadays. Thanks!

My Expectations of the camera:
Good crisp shots I dont care about video.

This post has been edited by littleloopy15: 20 March 2012 - 07:07 PM

[Kermit]

The "i" is just their higher end version of the camera. The "i" is just a little more of an advanced camera, the plain version is just the next step over a point and shoot.

For example, the t3i has a larger screen, larger viewfinder, 6 more megapixels, better video mode with more shooting options, etc. Both will deliver great shots assuming you know how to use them.

If you just want a basic camera to offer great shots, nothing wrong with the basic T lineup. If you want a little more out of a camera but don't really want to step up to a 60D or a 7D then the t_i's are great.

For a lens, just decide what you want to do with it. Long range? Up close? Low light capabilities? I'd suggest getting a 50 f1.8 to everyone at $100.

[MaidenArmy]

littleloopy15, on 20 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

So I am just wondering what are the differences between the T1, T2, T3, T1i, T2i and T3i. Basically I want to know which is the best bang for it buck and what the "i" means and why it's more expensive. Also what a good lens for the one you think is the best (a specific lens please) and links help. Lastly how much the camera you pick is going for used/new nowadays. Thanks!

My Expectations of the camera:
Good crisp shots I dont care about video.

The T2i and T3i are essentially the same but the T3i has a swivel screen and is made from a heavier material...T2i is an excellent camera

[littleloopy15]

Kermit, on 20 March 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

The "i" is just their higher end version of the camera. The "i" is just a little more of an advanced camera, the plain version is just the next step over a point and shoot.

For example, the t3i has a larger screen, larger viewfinder, 6 more megapixels, better video mode with more shooting options, etc. Both will deliver great shots assuming you know how to use them.

If you just want a basic camera to offer great shots, nothing wrong with the basic T lineup. If you want a little more out of a camera but don't really want to step up to a 60D or a 7D then the t_i's are great.

For a lens, just decide what you want to do with it. Long range? Up close? Low light capabilities? I'd suggest getting a 50 f1.8 to everyone at $100.

thanks, is $350 for a brand new T3 a decent price? and for the lens I want to be able to get decently far shots, but nothing ridiculously far. I am going to mostly be taking pictures of sports(paintball, basketball and football).

MaidenArmy, on 21 March 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

littleloopy15, on 20 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

So I am just wondering what are the differences between the T1, T2, T3, T1i, T2i and T3i. Basically I want to know which is the best bang for it buck and what the "i" means and why it's more expensive. Also what a good lens for the one you think is the best (a specific lens please) and links help. Lastly how much the camera you pick is going for used/new nowadays. Thanks!

My Expectations of the camera:
Good crisp shots I dont care about video.

The T2i and T3i are essentially the same but the T3i has a swivel screen and is made from a heavier material...T2i is an excellent camera

thanks for the info.

[Kermit]

In that case, I'd suggest an older DSLR like a 10D or a 20D($200-$300 used) and a 70-300 lens of some sort($150-$600). An older pro body will be more durable and will probably last longer and that extra reach with a longer lens will offer a little more reach. I'd also find a used 50 f1.8 for low light and walk around shots.

A 10D and a 70-300 has gotten me great photos and the whole rig costs under $500.



www.joshunruh.com. All the photos on my site were from a 10D.


Best advice I can give you is to stay out of the megapixel rat race, megapixels aren't a great way to judge image quality



You will have a hard time outgrowing this setup quickly, I just recently upgraded to a newer DSLR.

This post has been edited by Kermit: 21 March 2012 - 08:22 PM

[littleloopy15]

Kermit, on 21 March 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

In that case, I'd suggest an older DSLR like a 10D or a 20D($200-$300 used) and a 70-300 lens of some sort($150-$600). An older pro body will be more durable and will probably last longer and that extra reach with a longer lens will offer a little more reach. I'd also find a used 50 f1.8 for low light and walk around shots.

A 10D and a 70-300 has gotten me great photos and the whole rig costs under $500.



www.joshunruh.com. All the photos on my site were from a 10D.


Best advice I can give you is to stay out of the megapixel rat race, megapixels aren't a great way to judge image quality



You will have a hard time outgrowing this setup quickly, I just recently upgraded to a newer DSLR.

alright thanks a lot. Is there any 70-300mm lens is specefic I shld look for that wld keep my budget under $500-$600

[Nobben #44]

I'd take a older high-end consumer any day of the week over the 1100D(T3)

Look at Canon 10-40D or the Nikon D70.

70-300 f4.5-5.6 is a great lens for starting up. I can personally vouch for the Nikon version for getting sharp images.

[Kermit]

littleloopy15, on 21 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Kermit, on 21 March 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

In that case, I'd suggest an older DSLR like a 10D or a 20D($200-$300 used) and a 70-300 lens of some sort($150-$600). An older pro body will be more durable and will probably last longer and that extra reach with a longer lens will offer a little more reach. I'd also find a used 50 f1.8 for low light and walk around shots.

A 10D and a 70-300 has gotten me great photos and the whole rig costs under $500.



www.joshunruh.com. All the photos on my site were from a 10D.


Best advice I can give you is to stay out of the megapixel rat race, megapixels aren't a great way to judge image quality



You will have a hard time outgrowing this setup quickly, I just recently upgraded to a newer DSLR.

alright thanks a lot. Is there any 70-300mm lens is specefic I shld look for that wld keep my budget under $500-$600

I have a Canon 70-300 f4-f5.6 IS USM that I can vouch for. I think it was about $550 new.

It isn't a constant aperture, but that isn't a huge problem for most people. It's pretty fast, sharp images, quiet, IS is great.

I can't comment on any Nikon lenses.

If you want a cheap lens, I had a 70-300 from Quantaray that did OK for the money. Actually, really well for the money.

[littleloopy15]

Why are 70-200 lens so much more expensive than 70-300? What are the difference? And what would be best on a Canon 10d?

[Kermit]

For one, the 70-200 is an L series lens(from Canon at least) and those always fetch big bucks. The build quality is simply AMAZING on L series glass.

The next and largest thing is the aperture size. It's f2.8 constant. It doesn't matter how much you zoom in or out, it will always be at f2.8. With a 70-300, it will vary from f4-f5.6(thus the name).

f2.8 is also an added bonus. Faster shutter speeds will be available, low light scenarios will be more reachable, etc...many advantages come with a fast lens.

[littleloopy15]

Kermit, on 22 March 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

For one, the 70-200 is an L series lens(from Canon at least) and those always fetch big bucks. The build quality is simply AMAZING on L series glass.

The next and largest thing is the aperture size. It's f2.8 constant. It doesn't matter how much you zoom in or out, it will always be at f2.8. With a 70-300, it will vary from f4-f5.6(thus the name).

f2.8 is also an added bonus. Faster shutter speeds will be available, low light scenarios will be more reachable, etc...many advantages come with a fast lens.

ok thanks

what is macro zoom and tele-macro zoom?

[Kermit]

Tele-macro = macro zoom.

It's a Tele Macro because you can choose the focal length of the macro mode.

On a macro lens, you have a fixed focal length(50mm, 70mm, 120mm, etc). On a tele-macro, you can set the focal length. Basically, you can get close up shots of things far away.

[littleloopy15]

Kermit, on 22 March 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Tele-macro = macro zoom.

It's a Tele Macro because you can choose the focal length of the macro mode.

On a macro lens, you have a fixed focal length(50mm, 70mm, 120mm, etc). On a tele-macro, you can set the focal length. Basically, you can get close up shots of things far away.

Is every lens tele-macro? and if not, what is better, tele-macro or no tele-macro. Also sorry for all the questions, and thanks for all your help kermit.

[Nobben #44]

Macro lenses have a short focus distance. So you can have say a 105mm focused at 40cm away from the sens or of your camera.

[Blade of grass]

Telemacro are more expensive because they are more compact?

[Kermit]

When you shoot with a lens, you'll only have a specific range of what is called focal length.

You can try this right now. Take your hand and move it towards your face. After a certain distance, you will no longer be able to maintain focus.

Same thing does with a lens. Some lenses can't focus very close.

To my understanding, using a telephoto lens(something with zoom) with macro capabilities allows you to broaden that focal range after you've zoomed in. Someone told me that the longer lens works as an extension tube, but I'm not really sure how accurate that is.

[Nobben #44]

Kermit, on 23 March 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

When you shoot with a lens, you'll only have a specific range of what is called focal length.

You can try this right now. Take your hand and move it towards your face. After a certain distance, you will no longer be able to maintain focus.

Same thing does with a lens. Some lenses can't focus very close.

To my understanding, using a telephoto lens(something with zoom) with macro capabilities allows you to broaden that focal range after you've zoomed in. Someone told me that the longer lens works as an extension tube, but I'm not really sure how accurate that is.

A telephoto is just a tele lens. You're talking about a telezoom, which is not a macro lens by standard.
Macro lenses are usually just tele lenses that has a really close distance for the focus.

[The Knife Crazy]

ok so if i get the t2i with the 18-55 kit lens about how close will it be able to focus? examples?

[Nobben #44]

The Knife Crazy, on 11 April 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

ok so if i get the t2i with the 18-55 kit lens about how close will it be able to focus? examples?

I think it's around 40-60cm.

[Blade of grass]

the 18-55 has is a lens with the largest aperture being 3.5-5.6
But, you may be wondering what does this mean?

Well, a smallish aperture, like 14 will give deepish photos. like this;

Deck House View by WCH Imaging, on Flickr
But, photos at a big aperture, will give a blown out (blown out means without detail also known as blurry) background.
This photo was shot at 5.6, which is at the max range of an 18-55 lens (the lens this photo was shot with)

1-IMG_8221 by WCH Imaging, on Flickr
their are lenses that are even bigger aperture, some have a max of 1.4. But I only have an 18-55 3.5-5.6 so if someone else is willing to post/take a bokehlicious shot, that would be nice.
But, if you only get an 18-55, you can still take some great shots, like the I have ones posted.(At least I like them which is actually what's important.)

This post has been edited by Blade of grass: 13 April 2012 - 05:12 PM