Friends, help me choose a better one! Thanks

[paul13walnut5]

But then that's why I put 'For me' and 'I think' in italics.

Broad church.  Lots of nuts to be cracked.  Lots of different opinions on the hammers to use.
Maybe in the wash an absolute truth will come out.  Maybe not.

Be thankful for the marketplace of ideas.

I didn't say you were wrong.  Just that I think you are wrong.

[preppyak]

I'd opt for the T4i and the 40mm STM pancake lens and / or  18-135mm STM lens.  This is the first Canon DSLR that will autofocus while doing video, and it is designed to work with the STM lenses which have relatively silent AF motors.
The T3i is not optomized with these lenses.  It won't autofocus while doing video, so spending money on a AF lens for video is a waste, no matter which.

If you're an actor and making movies, you won't be using that AF anyway, as its not any better than pressing the shutter button and letting the camera hunt for focus. Everything is manual focus; they reason to get lenses that AF is if you plan on using the camera for stills as well.

I'll agree with others; get the T3i, get the Samyang lenses, learn to MF and expect a steep learning curve. If you're going to be doing just video work with the camera, start researching legacy lenses (Contax-Zeiss, Nikon AI, etc) as they are much cheaper than the modern Canon equivalents, and they work just fine with adapters for narrative video work.

When you are looking at lenses, you're not looking for what stills people look for. The 50mm f/1.8 has great IQ for its price, but its the worst lens Canon makes for manual focusing, which makes it hard to work with for video. The 40mm has the same limitation (tiny focus ring). That's where the Samyang lenses are so great

[HurtinMinorKey]

I'll agree with others; get the T3i, get the Samyang lenses, learn to MF and expect a steep learning curve. If you're going to be doing just video work with the camera, start researching legacy lenses (Contax-Zeiss, Nikon AI, etc) as they are much cheaper than the modern Canon equivalents, and they work just fine with adapters for narrative video work.

When you are looking at lenses, you're not looking for what stills people look for. The 50mm f/1.8 has great IQ for its price, but its the worst lens Canon makes for manual focusing, which makes it hard to work with for video. The 40mm has the same limitation (tiny focus ring). That's where the Samyang lenses are so great

There is no reason to get a t3i instead of a gh2 for video. You'll spend more on lenses for worse quality footage.

[paul13walnut5]

There is no reason to get a t3i instead of a gh2 for video. You'll spend more on lenses for worse quality footage.

Can think of four great big reasons:

-sensor size (and effect on DoF, wide angle etc)

-wrong mount

-lack of availability of decent fast aperture lenses (affordable primes and large aperture zooms)

-not as good for stills use

Canon will be making EF lenses in 5, 10 years time.  Fourthirds is already dead.  How long do you give m43?

[HurtinMinorKey]

1. 4/3s is only slightly smaller sensor than aps-c. (22mm vs. 17mm)
2. You can always buy adapters for lenses. 
3. The existing glass out there is cheaper for 4/3.
4. There are plenty of existing lenses with sufficiently tight DOF.   

But don't worry about the specs too much, just do some vimeo searches and look at the work being done on gh2s.

If you are only going to use it for video, there is no excuse not to go gh2. If you want it for stills too, well maybe an argument can be made...

[syder]

Yep, for video ditch the medium variable aperture zooms and go for primes.

T3i body only (I got a canon refurb for silly cheap) get a Samyang 35mm f1.4 or Canon 35mm f2.0 + Canon 50mm f1.8

50 1.8 is a terrible video lens. Tiny focus ring, minimal travel. Its not a lens which is designed for manually focussing with. You're far better off getting the 50 1.4 (canon or sigma) or getting an old manual focus 50mm if you need something dirt cheap.

The canon 35mm f2.0 looks similar - the sigma 30mm f1.4 is far better for video (and the extra stop is pretty useful too),

The 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 also have five-blade apertures which make out of focus highlights look like pentagons rather than circles.

[paul13walnut5]

I agree with the concessions to cost re: the nifty 50, but it is exceptional value in a way that the 1.4 50's are not.
Although not by any means the perfect video lens I was trying to keep it cheap and simple.
 
I would have the samyang 35 over either the Sigma or Canon 50 1.4 anyday.

[samueljay]

Used the 50 1.8 for video before I got the 1.2L, was fine, and definitely do-able if you're on a budget! So much bang for buck!

[Axilrod]

Are people seriously trying to say there aren't any benefits to using rigs/follow focus/etc.?  Come on then why does anyone buy them in the first place?  Sure maybe you've spent a few years getting good at it and can get acceptable footage, but do you really think a kid that doesn't know anything about these is going to be able to?  I'll tell you this, I've seen it time and time again that people try to shoot handheld with these things and the majority of the time it turns out like crap.  It's very difficult to focus on the back screen, it may look in focus when you play it back there but play it on a big screen.  And with rolling shutter it just seems dangerous to handhold a T2i in the first place.  Unless you're going for that Jason Bourne look I don't think you'll be happy with it.  You can have all the shallow DOF in the world but if it isn't stable it's still going to look amateur.

[paul13walnut5]

@Axilrod

Are people seriously trying to say there aren't any benefits to using rigs/follow focus/etc.?

No.  I have 1 rig which is unbeatable when the rare occasion demands it (moving shots down stairs) and a stabilser which is unbeatable when the occassion demands it (like a 360 inverted hand held track)

For the other 99% of occassions I go to my manfrotto video monopod or sachtler ACE tripod.

If by necessity I'm shooting lots of handheld I'll shoot with an ENG camera.