[Xaqtly]

The price/performance ratio escalation (for the better) between Nikon and Canon is really getting insane. The new Canon T2i is basically an EOS 7D. Upgrades from the T1i:

- 18MP
- 1080p HD video at 30fps with manual and autofocus
- 720p at 60 fps
- external mic input
- HDMI output
- Support for SDXC cards
- Regular ISO shooting range has been increased to 100-6400 (still capable of 12,800 ISO max)
- Same sensor as the 7D
- Continuous shooting up to 3.7 fps
- Metering points are up from 35 to 63
- New 3" LCD that has a wide aspect ratio for displaying HD video without cropping

And the cost? Suggested MSRP is $800 for body only, $900 with the kit 18-55 IS lens. That's insane. I'm pretty sure I'm going to get one of these, as it easily takes care of all the issues I have with my Rebel XT like the autofocus, poor low light performance, stuff like that. Also autofocusing while in movie mode is a huge improvement over the T1i. I have a camcorder right now but with the T2i I'm positive I won't need it any more.

Also, how cool is it to put a lens like my 85mm 1.8 on there and take a really good quality HD movie with it? I feel like that sort of thing hasn't really been available to the general non-professional public until real recently. Anyway this camera makes me happy. Opinions from the people who actually know what they're doing with cameras?

edit - sample video up now

[hmurchison]

This may be the camera I buy.

I know I want a DSLR and SDXC support is important to me because it goes about SDHC's 32GB cap.

It looks like a good starter DSLR and I'm sure Canon will have pretty solid video performance.

Sadly I don't know what I'm doing with a camera but I know what specs are important to me and this camera looks like a fantastic deal.

I played with a EOS 7D a couple of weeks back (it was a co-workers) and it was a bit over my head but this looks good.

[Dorian Gray]

Impressive!

But I don't think Nikon is the primary reason for this. More likely Panasonic and Olympus with their surprisingly popular Micro Four Thirds cameras (I say surprising because the prices are still very high, not because the products aren't attractive).

This camera suggests to me that Canon will be very late (last?) to market a compact, interchangeable-lens camera. The plan seems to be: nab all the fence-sitters before Micro Four Thirds sucks the life out of the low-end SLR market. That's a good plan for Canon and SLR customers alike!

Back to the camera: it's great to see support for SDXC. And the sensor is excellent if it performs like the 7D's: probably the best 1.5/1.6x crop-factor sensor in any camera at any price. The only fly in the ointment is putting an 18-55 mm kit lens in front of an 18-megapixel sensor. However the noise and dynamic-range performance of the sensor is superb regardless of the lens used.

[hmurchison]

Guys I need your suggestion/advice.

If I buy this camera (know that I have absolutely no lens now) should I buy the bundle or save the $100 and apply that to a better lens from the start?

I'd probably be doing 50/50 photography and video.

[BuonRotto]

I agree with Dorian Gray. Though I'm waiting for one of these manufacturers to use H.264 instead of Motion JPEG or some crap like that as their video codec. Does the Canon have that?

If the Oly E-PL1 had a better video codec, it would be a no-brainer for my wife and for me much of the time. I'm just not interested in a big fat SLR anymore. They're so cumbersome, I never take the things out! The rangefinders that are coming out remind me of when I shot with a Nikon rangefinder back in the day. I loved that format more than anything; it was far more versatile and fun to have it along all the time, even with just a 50mm prime.

[Robo]

I am in love with the E-PL1. Would it be a good camera for someone who is just getting into "real" photography? I have been using ELPHs for years, if that means anything...

[Wrao]

Dang, that hits many of the point that I was missing on last year's cameras, sounds really good.

[Xaqtly]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto I agree with Dorian Gray. Though I'm waiting for one of these manufacturers to use H.264 instead of Motion JPEG or some crap like that as their video codec. Does the Canon have that?

From the T2i spec page:

Video: MOV (Image data: H.264, Audio: Linear PCM)

[turtle2472]

This would be a great camera upgrade for my to hold me over until I can justify getting a 5D MkII. I love the features and price. I'll likely skip the kit though my kit lens from my XT doesn't have IS.

[Moogs]

Nikon better come out with some new DSLRs soon or they're finished... FINISHED I tell you! But seriously... that is a pretty impressive list of specs for under a grand. BTW have you seen the D3s' video? It's not $800 but then again it's not $8000 either like its sibling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46ca9zBP4A

[BuonRotto]

Originally Posted by Roboman I am in love with the E-PL1. Would it be a good camera for someone who is just getting into "real" photography? I have been using ELPHs for years, if that means anything...

IMO yes. The only negative it has to me is the video format (AVI -- yuck! but it can be overcome with a software converter). Its Live Guide UI is a great method of introducing you to photography exposure methods like shutter priority (show motion/freeze motion), and aperture priority (blur background/sharp background), and you can graduate to full priority modes and full manual. It does lack a dial for adjusting settings but you'll probably be more familiar with using the buttons anyway coming from P&S. It has a very good sensor size (a lot of SLR people give the micro-4/3 format flack, but it's really a smart system for exactly this type of camera), excellent JPEG output, excellent lenses, excellent image stabilization and dust removal technology.

My only other advice would be to get the Olympus pancake lens or the Panasonic 20mm pancake for everyday pocket-ability. The zooms are good but not as convenient given their depth. A fixed ("prime") focal length lens will force you to walk around and think more about composition. A lot of people, like myself, often get lazy about framing a shot with a zoom lens.

Originally Posted by Xaqtly From the T2i spec page:

Excellent!

[Frank777]

I have never been able to figure out Canon's branding. EOS Rebel T2i? What is wrong with these people?

That nameplate makes the camera look ugly. Just call the thing a T2i and be done with it.

/rant


But yes, nice specs, especially the SDXC support.

[PB PM]

I'm not that impressed, if the high ISO is as poor as that of the 7D, it wont be good for much other than day time shooting. 3.7FPS, seriously, that is hardly faster than the entry level D3000 from Nikon. Sure it is pumping more MP, (25% more at best), but at that price point the D5000 is shooting 4FPS, and the D90 body, which costs around $850 now, shots 4.5FPS. The 550D will be useless for action shooting to say the least, MEH. I wont be selling my D300 for it, lets put it that way.

[Xaqtly]

So I looked up SDXC cards, and LOLWALRUS'd myself. $500 for a 64GB card, apparently. I think I can force myself to live with a class 10 32GB SDHC card for $95 instead.

[PB PM]

Yeah, SDXC cards are priced way out of the average photographers price range. I don't think I'd buy a card bigger than 8GBs anyway, because you have a far greater chance of loosing pictures if a card fails if you have them all on one card. I wouldn't get a 32+GB card unless I was shooting 14bit RAW files with a D3X or A850/A900 (50mb each ).

[turtle2472]

Higher capacity would be needed if you're goning to us it as a video camera. I'm hanging around the 8GB mark for my cards too.

[PB PM]

Considering that videos are still limited to 5 minute clips, I cannot see any of the current DSLRs being practical for use as a video camera. I know some movies have been partially shot with video from DSLRs, but never the entire film.

[Frank777]

SDXC prices will fall quickly, once the tech gets more out into the wild.

[PB PM]

Sure, but I think it will be a few years yet, just like SSDs.

[turtle2472]

5 minute limit huh, I didn't know that. It'll take a while then.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by PB PM Considering that videos are still limited to 5 minute clips, I cannot see any of the current DSLRs being practical for use as a video camera. I know some movies have been partially shot with video from DSLRs, but never the entire film.

That's a little discouraging that they'd place that limit on there, considering that memory is only going to get cheaper, but, I wonder if there isn't some mechanical concern related to using a DSLR for movies for too long a period of time? Eitherway, I am liking the progress that DSLRs have made into comping for HD video cameras, but they are still pretty far from being *replacements*.

[PB PM]

The limit is there to keep the sensor from melting. You have to remember that a DSLR sensor is bigger, and has more current going through it than the average video camera sensor.

[turtle2472]

What's a little meltdown between friends?

[PB PM]

Yeah. I think the reason is not just melt down, but it also is known to create burnt pixels. It is the same reason that live view on most DSLRs shuts down after a set amount of time.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by Moogs Nikon better come out with some new DSLRs soon or they're finished... FINISHED I tell you!

[PB PM]

Yes Moogs, Nikon is finished, doomed... oh wait, their not.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 5 minute limit huh, I didn't know that. It'll take a while then.

What a movie...any movie and watch how long they actually run a shot without a cut. I guarantee you 95% if all editors keep their
cuts to under a 90 seconds. Movies aren't made by running the camera and knocking out a bunch of scenes they're typically made by
recording the same scene over and over and at different angles when needed until the perfect take is there. Even back yonder with actual
film many cameras recorded under 20 minutes per roll.

[turtle2472]

Interesting. Now that you mention it, you're right. I never noticed that before. The only times I can see not being like that are boring documentary films that just keeps going.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 Interesting. Now that you mention it, you're right. I never noticed that before. The only times I can see not being like that are boring documentary films that just keeps going.

Yes that's where that the long cuts come in. Documentary and some Indie flicks (for instance Gus Van Sant's Elephant had some cuts that were 2 to 3 minutes long) the problem is every flub up on a long cut means a lot of backtracking and setup.

5 minute record times may prevent you from being bludgeoned by 10 minutes of straight video of a cooing baby by the proud father (aka your buddy).

Well I think the stars have aligned and told me this is the camera for me because Aperture 3 came today. It's time to make it happen.

[BuonRotto]

Children of Men had cuts that were insanely long, but that is a strong (very,very strong) exception.

from Wikipedia:

Children of Men used several lengthy single-shot sequences in which extremely complex actions take place. The longest of these are a shot in which Kee gives birth (199 seconds); an ambush on a country road (247 seconds); and a scene in which Theo is captured by the Fishes, escapes, and runs down a street and through a building in the middle of a raging battle (454 seconds)

454 seconds is just over 7 1/2 minutes and it's considered an astounding piece of filmmaking.

I should add that actual filmmaking often involves letting the film roll while doing several takes, particularly if they are short and don't require a lot of camera movement/placement. At that point though, you usually have several cameras all rolling too.