# Canon 7D vs. T3i



## TheJozbo23 (Nov 26, 2011)

I am going to be switching over to Canon DSLR's before the holidays  and I have been looking at the comparisons of the 7D and the T3i. I really like how the 7D has much better fps, but besides that I didn't really see very big differences between the two. But I would have to think with almost a one thousand dollar difference there have to be some bigger differences. And with the 7D I would have to add in lens on top if it.
Any advice or opinions would be great.
The shots I take are landscape, and portraits.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2011)

Full comparison: Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

I'd think it's wise to save a thousand dollars, unless the FPS, environmental sealing or a couple other nits are that important to you that you'd pay that much more for them.


----------



## JustinFore (Nov 26, 2011)

Aside from what Buckster said, my biggest gripe over the small body Rebels is menu access vs direct access to certain functions.  Having to jump into a menu can cost valuable time...


----------



## Tigertail (Nov 26, 2011)

You may want to look into the 60D. Basically it's a small step up from the T3i with greatly improved menus and slightly better construction. For I think just $100 more.


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 26, 2011)

TheJozbo23 said:


> And with the 7D I would have to add in lens on top if it.


And for the t3i you don't need to put a lens on it?


> The shots I take are landscape, and portraits.


for landscape and portraits you don't need higher fps. 7D has better construction, more professional-level capabilities and some nice features like the LCD screen on the top. landscape doesn't really require any of that unless you work for the national geographic, and for portraits it's really not up to the camera but up to the photographer. i doubt you are going to get too technical with the 7D so save a thousand bucks and get the rebel.


----------



## TheJozbo23 (Nov 26, 2011)

mangtarn said:
			
		

> And for the t3i you don't need to put a lens on it?



I meant I would have to buy a lens, since the T3i has one included.

But I will check the 60D out.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 26, 2011)

Originally Posted by *mangtarn*
And for the t3i you don't need to put a lens on it?



I meant I would have to buy a lens, since the T3i has one included.

But I will check the 60D out.

As you probably know these 3 cameras share a similar sensor so you can probably expect similar image quality. The 7d is better built and all that, at quite a substantial premium. It also has a major af system improvement over the T3i. The 60d is somewhere in between. Although your style of photographs may enable the T3i to be great for your needs the af system on the 60d with 9 cross type sensors will be of benefit if you end up shooting moving or low light objects or people (which you may want from time to time). I am in europe so cannot compare prices but if the price difference between the 60d and t3i is only 100 dollars or so I think it would be wise to give a good look at this.
Some complain about the non-mag body of the 60d compared with the 50d/7d etc but if you drop any of these cameras onto concrete its replacement time so I dont think its as critical as others do. Any choice you go with wont be a bad one as all these are highly rated but it looks like the 60d gives a lot for the money,happy shopping


----------



## dakkon76 (Nov 27, 2011)

If you can't spot the differences, I'd suggest you go with either the T3i or the 60D and save yourself some cash. The 7D would be pretty daunting for someone just starting out on a DSLR and would definitely be overkill. By the time you're able to get everything out of a camera like the 7D, they'll have a better model out that you'll wish you would have waited for.


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 27, 2011)

nobody should start out with a 7D, even 60D is a overkill for beginners. the rebels are designed for beginners so if you are a beginner it will suit you best.


----------



## Crollo (Nov 27, 2011)

mangtarn said:


> nobody should start out with a 7D



Why not? It's not like it's more difficult to master, it just has more features that you might want or need down the line as you progress, saves you from buying better bodies over time as you decide when you're 'ready' to upgrade.

That's like saying a novice driver shouldn't get a car that works, just because they're probably not good enough to drive a nice car.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 27, 2011)

mangtarn said:


> nobody should start out with a 7D, even 60D is a overkill for beginners. the rebels are designed for beginners so if you are a beginner it will suit you best.


No disrespect intended here but I completely disagree with this statement. The exposure triangle and composition are the things most people struggle to get to terms with, and these are as simple or difficult irrespective of camera choice. The better featured camera will allow a user to use more advanced features as they themselves improve, the basic functions being pretty much the same irrespective of grade of DSLR. While it is always recommended to spend money on good lenses, a good camera with good room for technical improvement is never a bad thing to have in your arsenal


----------



## Jlatigo (Nov 27, 2011)

I think with the 7d having a 100% image on the view finder it makes for easier placement of the subjects for compositions purposes

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 27, 2011)

well poor choice of words on my side, what i meant to say was that no one starting out terribly needs a 7D. of couse if you give beginner a 5D mkII he would be still able to use it and learn with it, and it will allow him to improve with the camera for a longer period of time because of the additional features. but it all depends on the budget really, a cheaper rebel gives room in the budget for lens and flashes.


----------

