help!!

joey46

Well-known member
i need help on making quick decision. I no very little about cameras and some one wants to trade me a t3i for my dvx100a should i do it?
 
yes! and it wasn't a t3i, it was a t3. Ijust bought it off him for 200 bucks I hope it is just as good
 
the t3 is not the same as the t3i at all, different sensor, different video capabilities. That being said it will still be better than a dvx100a
 
yea i figured that out :( so any advise on how to get the best film look out of this thing?

See if you can hack it with Magic Lantern to shoot raw. You can install ML in a Canon 50D which I remember had the same limited HD movie problems. Give it a try.
 
See if you can hack it with Magic Lantern to shoot raw. You can install ML in a Canon 50D which I remember had the same limited HD movie problems. Give it a try.

Nah, the 50D was much more similar to the 60D/t2i/t3i than the t3 is. The 50D was one of the higher end prosumer cameras when it was released and shared much of the same guts as its successors- a1ex said the video feature was actually already there but disabled in the firmware. Since the code was so similar between them all, it was relatively easy to add similar Magic Lantern features found on later models as well.

The t3, however, is not an older model of the same thing. It's about as basic and consumer a camera as you could get before reaching point-and-shoot status. It was a lower resolution sensor and simplified feature set meant as a cheap alternative to a basic DSLR. There is no Magic Lantern port for it, and as far as I know, there isn't one planned anytime soon either. That being said, $200 isn't a bad deal for a great little still shooter. Surely you didn't expect a film-quality camera at that price. Go get some production photos with it!
 
Nah, the 50D was much more similar to the 60D/t2i/t3i than the t3 is. The 50D was one of the higher end prosumer cameras when it was released and shared much of the same guts as its successors- a1ex said the video feature was actually already there but disabled in the firmware. Since the code was so similar between them all, it was relatively easy to add similar Magic Lantern features found on later models as well.

The t3, however, is not an older model of the same thing. It's about as basic and consumer a camera as you could get before reaching point-and-shoot status. It was a lower resolution sensor and simplified feature set meant as a cheap alternative to a basic DSLR. There is no Magic Lantern port for it, and as far as I know, there isn't one planned anytime soon either. That being said, $200 isn't a bad deal for a great little still shooter. Surely you didn't expect a film-quality camera at that price. Go get some production photos with it!

sadly i did:( but the good news is i just sold it for 300 and now buying a t2i next week :)
 
sadly i did:( but the good news is i just sold it for 300 and now buying a t2i next week :)

Really? I mean, I know folks have gotten used to the notion that a prosumer video camera no longer costs the same as an old car, but $200 is a realistic expectation for semi-pro gear these days? Man, what a world we are in. It wasn't even 5 years ago that you needed to spend at least $3,000 to be taken seriously!

Anyway, yes- t2i is a much better choice. Be sure to save up a budget for glass, though. Remember that the body is only the price of entry into the video club. You'll easily spend more than the camera costs for lenses worth using. Good luck!
 
I wouldn't say $200 for a T2i is a "crazy steal". I've had mine for a little over 2 years and I would not expect to get much more than $250 for it. That being said, I love this little camera. Install Magic Lantern on it, it's worth it for the ISO settings alone. But the audio meters are good, expanded bracketing is great for making spherical HDRs, and the histogram and waveform are ok (they are not always perfectly accurate so be careful). I never expected video this good from an (at the time) $800 camera body.
 
Back
Top