Looking for opinions ASAP

I've been looking at the t3i as my first camera for a while now, but the other day a friend pointed out the Nikon D3200 as an alternative. I'm just looking for the pros and cons of both from people who have used them, and any other alternatives you guys might have in this price range. Thanks ahead of time, Paul.
 
I'd take a D5100 over the D3200(D3200 doesn't have a flip out screen). I personally own the D5100, love it for photography and I really haven't done any serious video or film work with it yet. I had an XTi, have used my friend's XS, and played with t2i's and t3i's at the store before, and I still prefer my Nikon.

Personally, I like the feel of a Nikon in my hands more than Canon. I found the menu and settings and all that jazz to be more to my liking on the Nikon -- I think wouldn't take too long to be get accustomed to Canon's stuff either-- and the better low light capabilities of the Nikon were a must for my photography.
 
Last edited:
Paul - are yo buying it for stills or video? For stills, I have owned Canon and Nikon DSLRs and you can't go wrong with either camera. I am a big fan of the T3i's flip-out screen, though.

For video, I wouldn't buy either of them.

The T3i has no video autofocus and can only record for 12 minutes at a time before you have to restart it. The Nikon records for 20 minutes at a time - and neither of them have viewfinders that work in video mode.

In your price range, I would get a Panasonic GH2 or Sony A57 for video. Both have fast video autofocus and viewfinders that keep working when you switch to video. The Sony can record 30 minute clips and the Panasonic has essentially no clip length limit.

Cheers, and good luck with your decision!

Bill
 
Bill, if Paul is making short films then the 12minute restriction and lack of auto focus shouldn't be an issue IMO. if its for events then yes go for something with those features.

I've been using the t3i for almost a year and not once used my 12 minutes up. And I always use manual focus for shooting short films no matter the camera or auto abilities (sometimes ill use auto assist which is kind of auto but can be overridden once you touch the dial)
 
My goal is to start making short films. As for the GH2, I wouldn't mind having it, but it would cost me about $1300 with the kit lens. Versus $1000 for the t3i with 2 lenses. I will also be doing some still photography.
 
I'm pretty sure the Canon is a much better photography camera than the GH2 (I haven't used it though but I've only ever heard of the GH2 being used for video, never for photos)

MC - The GH2 is a great camera for still photography as well as for video. My T2i was a lovely stills camera, but, at least in my view, I didn't give anything up when I sold the Canon.

Here are the stills others are shooting with the GH2: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1559566@N21/pool/

A couple of my personal GH2 stills:

"P3 Orion static display at NASA Ames Research Center", Olympus 11-22 lens: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-..._I/AAAAAAAAFxo/z4xjFpJoxmQ/s1149/P1100039.JPG

"Grand Slam", Tamron 70-300 (Nikon mount) lens: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...2I/AAAAAAAAFRc/dsUoOFegZxY/s1149/P1080011.JPG

Cheers and happy shooting,

Bill
 
I'd take a Nikon or Canon DSLR over a mirorless, like the GH2, if you were looking to do photography with it too. Granted, it's mostly up the photographer's skill level once you get out of the point and shoot market. I'm sure I could get similar results from a GH2, but the a DSLR has more to offer that is useful for photography. The better low light handling from a DSLR is invaluable to me and played a big part in choosing Nikon over Canon.
 
How come you don't consider the T4i if you need shoot films? The T4i may be a better choice as it is Canon’s only model that offers the capacity for autofocus even while in video mode.
 
Last edited:
Autofocus is rather useless in movie-making. Seriously, if you're shooting films, you're going to be using manual focus. Camera selection should be determined on basic shooting features (manual audio control? bitrate? low-light/grain performance?), and which lenses the camera takes.

Lenses are what'll really grind one's bank account to dust. Once you've picked a camera and started collecting lenses, you'll be pretty much locked into that brand of camera for future body upgrades.
 
Lenses are what'll really grind one's bank account to dust. Once you've picked a camera and started collecting lenses, you'll be pretty much locked into that brand of camera for future body upgrades.

Not necessarily, in fact the m4/3 mount on a GH2 can be adapted to any lens. including cine PL mount.

That said, if you're spending the $$ on PL lenses, you're probably not too stressed about an $800 camera.

GH2/GH3 is the best DSLR (though technically a DSLM) for video use because it's hackable and can be adapted to any lens.
 
Just because you can throw an adapter on it and make it work, doesn't mean you should. You're always going to be better off using a lens with a mount for the body, rather than using an adapter.

That's also not really true - if using an adapter gets you better lenses, then use the adapter. No-one could ever argue that a 7D is going to look better with Canon L primes than with a modification and Zeiss PL Ultra Primes. Similarly, no-one could argue that a Panasonic kit lens, or m4/3 specific lens, would look better than a PL adapter and Zeiss Master Primes.
If an adapter helps you get a better image, go for it. Now, I would agree that it's not the ideal way to go about lensing (ie, you'd be better off with a PL mount camera if you're going to use/rent/invest in PL mount lenses), but if it's all you got it's better than nothing.

Lensing and lighting are the biggest contributors to the look of the image, much moreso than the camera body itself.
 
Back
Top