T2i What's the better investment?

S

Stephen Michael

Member
Hello all -

I have both the Canon t2i and the panasonic af100, and I've got a small problem. I bought the af100 for my more established work (such as film shoots, music videos, etc) and the dslr for more run and gun sort of work. I was wondering, however, if I should ditch the af100 and use the money I get from selling that to go towards an investment in some zeiss primes for the t2i. Really torn on this one...
 
I have shot lots of high end work on my t2i with cp.2 lenses with great success. I can't speak for the AF100 however since i have never used it. I do not, however, like to buy lenses. I usually rent the ones i will need for the days i need them
 
I'm a huge fan of good glass because you can use it camera body after camera body. So if the AF100 is too much for you right now, I'd go Zeiss's. That said- there's tons of other areas to invest in as well- lights, sound, etc.

-Noah
 
I just sold my AF101 & Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F/0.95 & selection of Canon FD 'L' lenses but kept my GH2 & Panasonic lenses (20mm F/1.7, 7-14mm F/4 & 14-140mm F/4.0-5.8). The money that I got wouldn't buy me one Zeiss Compact Prime although it would buy a Canon 5DII body plus a decent 'L' lens or two.
 
Remember, sometimes having too sharp of a lens can really exaggerate the problems of Canon DSLR footage instead of making it look better. Some people actually go out of their way to shoot a bit softer on purpose to avoid moire and aliasing on window blinds, car grills, hair and clothing.

I love the T2i, and I love the lenses I can use on it, however I would sooner put a Zeiss on the AF100 than on the t2i. My personal opinion, taking into consideration that the t2i only resolves a certain amount for video, and throws most of the sensor data away anyway.

I'm also more of a fan of owning lenses that you have practiced with and understand the limitations of versus renting and learning in the field, especially on this camera. Although all of these arguments can go either way.
 
M. Gilden said:
Remember, sometimes having too sharp of a lens can really exaggerate the problems of Canon DSLR footage instead of making it look better. Some people actually go out of their way to shoot a bit softer on purpose to avoid moire and aliasing on window blinds, car grills, hair and clothing.

I love the T2i, and I love the lenses I can use on it, however I would sooner put a Zeiss on the AF100 than on the t2i. My personal opinion, taking into consideration that the t2i only resolves a certain amount for video, and throws most of the sensor data away anyway.

I'm also more of a fan of owning lenses that you have practiced with and understand the limitations of versus renting and learning in the field, especially on this camera. Although all of these arguments can go either way.
Click to expand...

True but at $850 for the T2i body- it's a minor expense next to good glass and leaves you plenty of room to grow to bigger and better cameras down the road. Don't get me wrong- I like both of these cameras. But you can re-use good glass and re-sell it far more efficiently than camera bodies.

-Noah
 
NoahK said:
True but at $850 for the T2i body- it's a minor expense next to good glass and leaves you plenty of room to grow to bigger and better cameras down the road. Don't get me wrong- I like both of these cameras. But you can re-use good glass and re-sell it far more efficiently than camera bodies.

-Noah
Click to expand...

This is true, however I would like to point out two things:
1) A t2i body is actually worth about half of that these days. I know because I've bought and sold a couple recently for less than $500. This actually makes your argument stronger in that regard, as they are practically disposable and excellent starters for a "room to grow" camera.

2) My point is not that a Zeiss prime is a bad investment, but rather that using one on a T2i may be. I'm not certain the camera resolves enough detail to make it worth the additional expense in glass, and even if it does you may reach the point of diminishing returns, with more of your footage being negatively effected than positively.

If the OP were discussing a camera model that did not suffer from image artifacts in sharpness (such as the AF100 or better yet the GH2, which IS worth around $800 if we are arguing that case) that might be a different story. But if the t2i is the camera to keep (and I agree that its an excellent choice to keep), then maybe the Zeiss primes should wait until you have a camera that can clearly benefit from it.
 
I shot a few things on the FS100 and ended up selling it because I really liked the DSLRs at the end of the day. I think it really depends on your work, client expectations, your own goals, etc..but I would agree that the T2i/T3i would underutilize everything the zeiss' can offer..
 
NoahK said:
True but at $850 for the T2i body- it's a minor expense next to good glass and leaves you plenty of room to grow to bigger and better cameras down the road. Don't get me wrong- I like both of these cameras. But you can re-use good glass and re-sell it far more efficiently than camera bodies.

-Noah
Click to expand...

Dude, where are you shopping at? Rip-Offs-R-Us? lol. :P The T2i WITH the kit lens is $649 at Amazon brand new and as low as $529 Used. I'd sell it and before getting a T2i I'd wait and see the info on the upcoming 5D Mark III and Canon T4i, which will be using new sensors. They are supposed to have better high ISO performance and most are expecting some aliasing/moire improvement as well. They should be announcing at least the 5D MKIII in a few days.

I'd also consider an FS100U. The low light is simply incredible.
 
Actually yeah- Rip offs R Us is my favorite store. Why- is there something I should know??? :grin:

-Noah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top