First DSLR: T2i vs T3i

[Little Wolf]

Hello Everyone,

I've been doing a little research on DSLR cameras, and stumbled across Digital Photography School in one of my many Google searches. I've read some excellent things here and everyone seems very friendly and knowledgeable. So, here I am, seeking some expert guidance!

I am contemplating purchasing a Canon DSLR sometime in the next few months, but have a few questions. This will be my first DSLR camera, I am a complete beginner when it comes to photography (unless you want to count point and shoot cameras).

From my research, the two main differences in the T2i and the T3i are the remote flash module and the flip screen on the T3i. While the remote flash module is neat, I honestly don't think I'd use it much just starting off, so it really isn't a deciding factor. The flip screen might be nice though. My main question: is the flips screen on the T3i worth the roughly $100 difference in price? Or would I be better off putting that money into a second lens? Here are my main uses for the camera:

1)Travel photography
2)Nature/outdoor/scenery photography
3)Family get togethers, etc.

Thank you in advance for all of your help!

[RichardTaylor]

To me the flip out screen is and remote flash control is worth it.

The flip out screen can come in very handy for those low level nature shots (I have one on a G11)

[inkista]

To me, $100 for lens money is squat. Unless you want the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. But few lenses are in that price range. It's not like real money. A "cheap" lens is one that's $300 or less. A medium-priced lens is around $600. And lenses get "expensive" at four figures.

Moving to a dSLR is a lot more expensive than upgrading an all-in-one compact camera. Most of us end up spending at least two to three times the amount we did on the camera body on lenses and other accessories.

And as for the remote flash thing, this is why we like it. If your camera doesn't have a master unit in the pop-up flash, you have to spend $200-$500 to get a flash master unit on the hotshoe. So you can see why a $100 price bump seems worth it to those of us who could use one.

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by inkista

To me, $100 for lens money is squat. Unless you want the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. But few lenses are in that price range. It's not like real money. A "cheap" lens is one that's $300 or less. A medium-priced lens is around $600. And lenses get "expensive" at four figures.

Moving to a dSLR is a lot more expensive than upgrading an all-in-one compact camera. Most of us end up spending at least two to three times the amount we did on the camera body on lenses and other accessories.

And as for the remote flash thing, this is why we like it. If your camera doesn't have a master unit in the pop-up flash, you have to spend $200-$500 to get a flash master unit on the hotshoe. So you can see why a $100 price bump seems worth it to those of us who could use one.

+1 on this. You may not need the remote flash to start with, but when you get to the place you do, you will be saving a lot more then the $100 difference in price. Think of it this way, when you get to the place where you do need the remote flash, you will have saved yourself between $200-$500 that could be spent on lenses.

And the flip-screen in really nice for those times you need it as well. It has come in darn near invaluable for some low level waterfall shots where I'm already standing in the creek and don't want to have to get completely soaked.

[mrteacherdude]

Remote flash is awesome. I upgraded camera bodies originally thinking that I didn't care about the possibility of remote flash. I ended up buying a speedlight for the increased/better controlled output, and have found that I use the remote triggering way more than I thought I would. For what you are looking at, that alone to me would be worth the extra money.

[Little Wolf]

Well, perhaps I should save a little longer so I can spring for the T3i then. I really just don't see myself taking lots of low light photographs (at least to begin with).

Next question: for the type of photography (travel and outdoor/nature) I plan to do, which lens would be the best complement to the kit lens (18-55mm) that comes with the camera? The 50mm f1.8 or the 55-250mm telephoto?

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by Little Wolf

Well, perhaps I should save a little longer so I can spring for the T3i then. I really just don't see myself taking lots of low light photographs (at least to begin with).

Next question: for the type of photography (travel and outdoor/nature) I plan to do, which lens would be the best complement to the kit lens (18-55mm) that comes with the camera? The 50mm f1.8 or the 55-250mm telephoto?

That would be the 55-250mm. As this is the type of photography I do, you will find the range an absolute necessity. There are many times that even the 250 isn't enough "reach" for me, especially if you are shooting birds and such. The 50mm would be perfect if you are shooting more family/portrait stuff.

As far as "low light" shooting is concerned, you will find that because both these "kit lenses (the 18-55 and 55-250) are pretty "slow" lenses, the definition of "low light" is not just dark rooms. But if you are talking about using the remote flash capability, I can understand that you may not use it much for your style of photography. That said, there are still times where it is very handy (using a remote flash to shine a "back light" on a flower, for instance). But in reality, if you are shooting nature shots, that articulated screen can become pretty important at times.

And another thing you will quickly realize is that the $100 difference in price is nothing. Especially if you really start getting into this hobby, where really good outdoor/nature lenses will cost you well over $1000, and camera bodies run over $5000.

Another thing to consider, if the outdoor/nature stuff is your thing, will be a good tripod.

[inkista]

+1 everything that was said above.

A tripod, learning to stop down into the f/8-f/16 range, and possible a cable release or a remote would be good things for landscape photography.

The off-camera lighting will come in handy when you start wanting to take pics of the family. And no, flash is not just for low-light. Flash, when used in the daytime outdoors, can be invaluable as fill to increase contrast/lower dynamic range. I took the following shot outside, and did NOT add anything saturation-wise in post-processing. It was all done with simple, direct, off-camera fill flash.



Just saying. Flash can be more than you think it is, if your only experience with flash comes from on-board itty-bitty flashes.

But I also agree that given you want to be outside shooting landscapes, available light is going to be the majority of your shooting, and you shouldn't really worry about that right now. If you hadn't put the third item on your list (family), I'd say go get the T2i.