A little sad; just packed up my T2i to sell

H

Hallvalla

Active member
Bought the GH2 and it's better for what I need right now; 75% family pics/movies. But I couldn't help feeling a little remorse about giving up the T2i, such a great camera especially with ML.

Loved the still images the T2i could produce. I didn't like the LCD in daylight when recording movies though. Anyway, I need better glass for the GH2 otherwise I'd keep them both.
 
Already got it. Haven't used the T2i much since. But still have a little T2i remorse. I saw the latest ML build and started wondering if I'm doing the right thing. I have the T2i in its original box right by me here at work, but haven't pulled the trigger to list it yet...lol.
 
You know really, unless you're dealing with a 60D, every Canon camera out there is worse in almost all ways than the other current names. I've always felt like the "remorse" with Canon is simply giving up a brand name that has a large following (if you say "Hey, I shot this film with a Canon 7D", people get interested, but say "I shot this film with a Nikon D7000" and no one will care, as Nikon has been in the dumps for so long concerning filmmaking.), but that's about it. The bodies, controls, and movie modes of Canon are most all horrible, and even the photographs are pretty noisy and don't seem to deliver their full 18MP potential. Hands down, I want to switch to either the Nikon D7000 or GH2, because the horrible quality I get in movie mode from my T2i is plain unrealistic and in my opinion could never pass as an official film. Red objects are blocky as hell, as though you snatched them from a 1980's Nintendo, letters are horribly fringy, skin looks like play-doh, and overall, things just look plastic. Yet it's not the lenses, everything looks outstanding in the pictures I take. And the truth is I think Nikon and Panasonic suffer from this much, much less - sadly, while you have a bit of a cult following with Canon DSLR filmmaking, the marketing side of using a Nikon or GH2 is pretty low - thank goodness Hills Green is braving out the GH2 side, and it is an incredibly professional looking film!

And I may just brave out the Nikon side myself. I personally think Nikon has always had just a bit of an artistic edge in the lighting equality (much like the difference between the T2i and MKII), and I also think everything comes out sharper and more realistic with a Nikon. I love their lenses, I think their camera bodies look extremely professional, and hands down they've always been the firsts to jam pack their cameras with billions of useful features (beyond auto-movie mode, until now.) So I think that may be my direction. Unless someone can tell me some sort of way to bypass the fringy plastic look with the Canon. Cuz as it is, I can't stand taking videos with my T2i, every single time I view a video that I KNOW should have turned out beautiful, and does on the LCD, I watch it on my computer and it really is always so incredibly dissapointing. I shouldn't get crap like that from a $1,000 DSLR, and I think the only people who think Canon's video mode is worth anything is people who's eyes are worse in real life than what the DSLR video's give them. I have incredibly sharp eyes, so when I see a video that makes me feel like my eyesight has been blocked by a piece of plastic, it's frustrating! But again, the photographs I take are 100% opposite and are all realistic.
 
I agree, Snapper. If you don't have an external monitor with the T2i, it is almost useless imo. This is my experience, I'm sure more seasoned DSLR video shooter get a better look. The stills were really nice though. I have taken some of my favorite pics of my 2 year old with that camera, and I'll miss it. Although the GH2 has already taken some nice images and much easier to whip out and use.

btw: I will not be including your above post in my Craigslist listing for the T2i. ;)
 
Snapper123 said:
You know really, unless you're dealing with a 60D, every Canon camera out there is worse in almost all ways than the other current names. I've always felt like the "remorse" with Canon is simply giving up a brand name that has a large following (if you say "Hey, I shot this film with a Canon 7D", people get interested, but say "I shot this film with a Nikon D7000" and no one will care, as Nikon has been in the dumps for so long concerning filmmaking.), but that's about it. The bodies, controls, and movie modes of Canon are most all horrible, and even the photographs are pretty noisy and don't seem to deliver their full 18MP potential. Hands down, I want to switch to either the Nikon D7000 or GH2, because the horrible quality I get in movie mode from my T2i is plain unrealistic and in my opinion could never pass as an official film. Red objects are blocky as hell, as though you snatched them from a 1980's Nintendo, letters are horribly fringy, skin looks like play-doh, and overall, things just look plastic. Yet it's not the lenses, everything looks outstanding in the pictures I take. And the truth is I think Nikon and Panasonic suffer from this much, much less - sadly, while you have a bit of a cult following with Canon DSLR filmmaking, the marketing side of using a Nikon or GH2 is pretty low - thank goodness Hills Green is braving out the GH2 side, and it is an incredibly professional looking film!

And I may just brave out the Nikon side myself. I personally think Nikon has always had just a bit of an artistic edge in the lighting equality (much like the difference between the T2i and MKII), and I also think everything comes out sharper and more realistic with a Nikon. I love their lenses, I think their camera bodies look extremely professional, and hands down they've always been the firsts to jam pack their cameras with billions of useful features (beyond auto-movie mode, until now.) So I think that may be my direction. Unless someone can tell me some sort of way to bypass the fringy plastic look with the Canon. Cuz as it is, I can't stand taking videos with my T2i, every single time I view a video that I KNOW should have turned out beautiful, and does on the LCD, I watch it on my computer and it really is always so incredibly dissapointing. I shouldn't get crap like that from a $1,000 DSLR, and I think the only people who think Canon's video mode is worth anything is people who's eyes are worse in real life than what the DSLR video's give them. I have incredibly sharp eyes, so when I see a video that makes me feel like my eyesight has been blocked by a piece of plastic, it's frustrating! But again, the photographs I take are 100% opposite and are all realistic.
Click to expand...

Just a question: Do you use downloaded picture styles for your movie mode?
Cause when I shoot 'super flat' the skin tones indeed look like clay, but in Neutral mode with the contrast and sharpness turned down this is absolutely not the case.

Actually, I love the colors of my 60D...
 
Honestly...ALL these camera are darn good..if someone cant make something beautiful from them then thats their own doing...not the camera.
 
::scratches head::
I will agree that the Moire issue and aliasing are reasons to be disappointed with Canon's footage at times, but I can honestly say I have absolutely NO IDEA what Snapper123 is complaining about.
Plasticy?

Oh wait- I remember you. Aren't you the guy that said:
I don't really care about what aperture I have, and as long as the Panasonic hdc-tm700 had a 100ISO-Lock, I'd slap it on that and have a field day, as I feel like aperture doesn't have a purpose in my heart beyond opening up enough to let light in.
Click to expand...
...and then went on to complain about how much precision these cameras require and you'd rather be shooting with a camcorder?

I don't think you appreciate what we love about shooting with these cameras.

And then you had that whole thread where you complaining about DSLR video looking "chunky" (and most of the forum kind of turned around in unison and said "huh?").

Yeah, I remember you. Ok, well hopefully the GH2 will pan out better for you. As for the t2i not being capable of producing film-quality... Well, that's just your opinion, and if you want, tell that to all the producers that chose to use it for their big budget film or television show. Is the best option? Not necessarily. But is it bad? It wouldn't be as popular as it is if it were that bad.

BTW, there is something to be said for going with the popular brand, even if it is not the best: User Community support. The same is true of any kind of tech- laptops, NLEs, cell phones, etc. The more popular brands have the most user discussions, tweaks, hacks (Magic Lantern for the win!), accessories, etc. If there is a problem, the more popular brands are more likely to have a fix or workaround documented, and more likely to retain their value when you want to move on.

THAT's why I stuck with Canon, and its why Canon is almost always the choice of professional productions when they do decide to use DSLR. Its not because they want to use "the popular brand" for name recognition, but rather it is so well known, and the problems and issues so well documented, they already know what to expect when they walk into it.
I love it, even though I have to plan my shots out more carefully to prevent those 2 issues. But if you plan accordingly, you can get it almost down to a science. And for the record- try shooting with film sometime. Its complicated for entirely other reasons. Camcorders are MUCH easier, and often have more useful features. But, that's not what makes a good looking video.

Anyway, back to the OP... I hear you, man. I felt that way when I sold my first car. You almost feel like you're cheating on a loved one. Leaving them for a more attractive model. No worries, it'll find a good home, I'm sure. Keep shooting quality stuff, whatever your equipment!
 
Last edited:
Unless someone can tell me some sort of way to bypass the fringy plastic look with the Canon. Cuz as it is, I can't stand taking videos with my T2i, every single time I view a video that I KNOW should have turned out beautiful, and does on the LCD, I watch it on my computer and it really is always so incredibly dissapointing.
Click to expand...

@Snapper123
Can you share how you shoot?
What lenses do you use?
What picture style?
Shutter?
ISO?

Would like to help you solve this plasticy problem you speak of.
 
Snapper 123 i now use a GH2 because i decided to accept the full refund from my 550D because it was the second one to give sound input problems,but regarding PQ i personaly have not as yet managed to equal the color look withe the GH2 i got with my 550D also moire ailsing is no better.

http://vimeo.com/16275897

http://vimeo.com/19291613

videos with both cameras above ,obviously in every dept of use regarding filming the GH2 is far better.
 
Snapper123 said:
The bodies, controls, and movie modes of Canon are most all horrible, and even the photographs are pretty noisy and don't seem to deliver their full 18MP potential.
Click to expand...

The sensor can resolve all 18 megapixels. You just need to have a lens that is sharp enough. Try out a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS lens sometime and you will see all of the missing details.

Snapper123 said:
because the horrible quality I get in movie mode from my T2i is plain unrealistic and in my opinion could never pass as an official film. Red objects are blocky as hell, as though you snatched them from a 1980's Nintendo, letters are horribly fringy, skin looks like play-doh, and overall, things just look plastic.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like the same camera that I have. Is everything in full manual mode? Contrast and saturation at or below zero? Have you tried the Faithful picture style? It's a bit nicer on skin tones.
 
@ robotsound

The sensor can resolve all 18 megapixels. You just need to have a lens that is sharp enough. Try out a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS lens sometime and you will see all of the missing details.
Click to expand...

He might be one of those people who thinks a kit lens is all you need and that people waste their money on more expensive lenses. I've had plenty of debates with people on these threads about getting better lenses. Many think other lenses are a waste of money.
 
I think the kit lens is actually fairly decent, and that it gets a bad rap. You can make a good looking movie with the kit lens.

But if you want incredibly, amazingly sharp photos with great flare resistance and bokeh and all of that, the extra glass really is necessary at that point.

People on this site are coming from all sorts of different backgrounds and have different goals, objectives, and budgets. I think that's where a lot of the disagreements on here come from.
 
robotsound said:
That doesn't sound like the same camera that I have. Is everything in full manual mode? Contrast and saturation at or below zero? Have you tried the Faithful picture style? It's a bit nicer on skin tones.
Click to expand...

If you've seen his posts around the forum, he's the type that does not have patience for anything manual. I think it explains a lot about his post.

draven4 said:
@ robotsound
He might be one of those people who thinks a kit lens is all you need and that people waste their money on more expensive lenses. I've had plenty of debates with people on these threads about getting better lenses. Many think other lenses are a waste of money.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to make judgments or anything, but some people are just like that.
Its like the way a manual shift car is sometimes preferable to an automatic, yet many people in this ADD-riddled world would rather have everything done for them, and complain when it doesn't yield the best results. Or like people who just blindly buy a Mac thinking it will automatically make them a video editor, and start working in iMovie.
He also complained in a thread somewhere that he "shouldn't feel this way after spending around $1000 on a camera". Um, ok- go spend $5k on a video camera like everyone else did a few of years ago. Then pick up a Canon DSLR and realize what amazing tool this is for the price.
These whole point here is that this is a STILL camera that happens to take comparable footage to a much more expensive camera (and actually have a more similar workflow to film than a camcorder does). But don't expect it to be easy.
Just like driving a manual shift car can give you more power, more control, better gas mileage, and overall a more rewarding driving experience, if you do it wrong you will hate it and curse its existence.

You have to understand how it works, why it works, and do your homework. The GH2 is more video friendly, that is true. And perhaps he'll be happier with that. But honestly, you can make an award winning film with a Canon DSLR, and a $500 PC Laptop, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
 
I shoot over 50% of my footage handheld so I need a camera with weight. Forget the fack that the Gh2 is smaller, they don't even have a battery grip ( last time I heard ).


Gh2 form factor kills it for me personally, also so does the crop. I am constantly trying to find the widest lenses for My canon, gh2 would only make that more problematic. At the end of the day though, these are all Excellent cameras.

The next Canons will hopefully reduce moire and aliasing.
 
Yeah, I just think he's talking technically not to the fact that many people bring up which is "great films can be made with any camera" type of thing. Same with lenses. I get all that about lens doesn't matter movies can be made with Kit lenses, blah blah blah.

We're here to talk technically, if not go to the directing forum.

Technically a kit lens when zoomed in a 50mm is limited to f5.6. On a prime 1.8 is the limit or 1.2 depending on which you buy. Try making a horror film with a kit lens. Now try the same film with a prime lens. You will see the benefits of having to open up when you need it. That's all. I know award winning films can be made with a kit lens... yaddah yaaddah yaddah.

And so can an award winning film with a DVX. Which would you rather have right now? DVX or DSRL? What if people argued, but DVX's can make award winning films, so don't waste money on a DSLR. You own it because it technically gives you something different and beautiful in terms of a look compared to a DVX. And so does a prime lens when opened up. So have fun shooting a f3.5 - 5.6 at a high ISO. Don't forget to move your lights closer!

For him if he finds a GH2 is technically what he wants then good for him. Just like I find primes work for me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top