Canon T2i vs T3i

[gartea13]

I will be purchasing either the T2i or T3i this week and am still undecided on which would better fit my photography needs. There doesn't seem to be a huge difference between the two, although I like the screen on the newer model. Is the extra $60 worth it?

I plan to be doing some shooting at small concerts, parties, and other events. This camera comes in a kit which includes the Canon 18-55mm IS lens. Would that be alright for the previously listed purposes if I am just starting off or should i buy the body and a different lens?

I would also like to get into doing portraits. Is there a beginner lens for a reasonable price that anyone can recommend/will the Canon 18-55 work for this?

I plan to primarily be photographing sporting events, particularly rowing (which takes place far from shore). What lens would be best for this? I was considering a kit with the t2i body, the Canon 18-55mm lens and a 75-300mm lens. Would this kit meet all three of my needs?

Lastly, I'm guessing that a flash would be necessary in the poorly lit venues where the concerts will be held. Is there a decent, but relatively inexpensive, beginner flash that I could purchase?

Thanks so much for any help!

[Phillydog1958]

I'm not familiar with Canon cameras. Nikon guy here, but isn't the T3i the latest technology and reigns over the T2i?

[gartea13]

yes, but from what I've read, it is very similar to the T2i... it has a screen that flips out and a few other features that don't really appeal to me since I'm just starting out. I just want to see if anyone on here has tried both and can compare

[ishootRAW]

Dont get the t3i. Unless you want to do a lot of video, it isn't worth it. Get the t2i with the 18-55. Don't get the 75-300 (see below).

You say you want to do concerts and portraits? Then the 18-55 will not cut it.

Here is the starter kit I recommend. 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 50 1.8.

First, the 18-55, for the price, it's rather good. Sure it's not really sharp, nor is it fast, but it gets the job done. (if you have a little more $ laying around, take a look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8)

Next the 55-250. Yah not a great lens. But it's better then the 75-300, the problem with the 75-300 is that it's old. It was a bargain lens 20 years ago. The 55-250 will serve you better. Again, if you are willing to spend more take a look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8. This will serve you better in concerts and the like.

The 50mm F/1.8. The "nifty fifty". It's aperture will do a lot for you in concerts. And the DOF will look nice in portraits. And besides, it's only $105.

Thats my $0.02.

Waiting for inkista;-)

[ArmySoldier777]

Kind of off topic, but wasn't the 50mm F/1.8 like $200 just a little while ago? I'm pretty sure that's the lens I was looking at getting. I could be wrong though. But if not, gotta be thankful for that huge price drop


David

[veritasimagery]

Another big difference between the T2i and the T3i is the ability to remotely fire a flash is built in. Actually, in reality, that and the flip out LCD screen are the only real differences. So no, the statement that the T3i is only good for video is false. And I can tell you that after watching a friend shoot a concert with his Nikon, and built in remote firing ability (with two remote flashes), I was sold on this being a fantastic option.

As far as lenses go, the 18-55 is great if everything you do is close. For concerts it will not be enough. And the 55-250 is just fine. Some people have complained about it "sharpness" but as I have shown in another thread, it does well. Here's that example: (see attachment)


But, also knowing your budget, which means you can only get the camera and one lens (if you still want a good flash), then try to get the 18-135. You have to decide if the $100 price difference is worth it. Both cameras will work, since they are basically the same camera.

[ishootRAW]

Originally Posted by ArmySoldier777

Kind of off topic, but wasn't the 50mm F/1.8 like $200 just a little while ago?

$119 - B&H. $100 if you get it from a sketchy retailer.

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

Another big difference between the T2i and the T3i is the ability to remotely fire a flash is built in. Actually, in reality, that and the flip out LCD screen are the only real differences. So no, the statement that the T3i is only good for video is false. And I can tell you that after watching a friend shoot a concert with his Nikon, and built in remote firing ability (with two remote flashes), I was sold on this being a fantastic option.

I did not know the 600d had a speedlite transmitter. I thought it was just the 60D and 7D. However, I have never liked the Canon or Nikon systems. I much prefer Pocket Wizards. (or any radio trigger for that matter)

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

I did not know the 600d had a speedlite transmitter. I thought it was just the 60D and 7D. However, I have never liked the Canon or Nikon systems. I much prefer Pocket Wizards. (or any radio trigger for that matter)

I'm sure the PocketWizards may be better, but considering that the T3i is only $100 more than the T2i, then it's a great deal. You'd be spending more than that to get a remote flash transmitter.

[ishootRAW]

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

I'm sure the PocketWizards may be better, but considering that the T3i is only $100 more than the T2i, then it's a great deal. You'd be spending more than that to get a remote flash transmitter.

Very true,

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

Very true,

Yeah, I couldn't quite swing the 60D, so I was going to buy the T2i. But just before my tax return showed up it was out of stock. Then the T3i showed up with the articulated screen and remote flash capabilities of the 60D and I was glad I hadn't gotten my money sooner and bought the T2i. The remote flash ability has come in handy a few times. And the articulated screen has been nice for those low shots.