New Camera Rig / Poll on Your Current Brand of DSLR

bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 00:12
Last edited 19/10/2014 - 08:09

EDIT:
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions - this has been enlightening. It's clear I need to rethink my rig, which I have started to do. When I decide when it will be (might be a month or so), I'll update the thread.

——-Original post:

After years of getting by with my entry level DSLR (Nikon D3100) with kit lenses and much research, I'm currently looking to buy a new camera rig:

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark 3
  • Prime 50mm
  • Tamron 16-300 mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO - The main lens I'll use while traveling. EDIT 1 thanks Photonaturally for pointing out that's for a crop censor. I'll need the 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD. EDIT 3 no longer considering the tamron based on multiple lots of feedback that this lens is a insult to a good body! Considering canon L glass instead.

Photography is my hobby and passion. My mentality has been to survive for as long as possible with the Nikon until I could justify to upgrade to my ultimate rig. I have not bought any additional lenses for this reason as I knew I would eventually buy a new body and I'd just be throwing money away.

I've noticed there are a lot of photographers here on the bargs, so I was hoping you may have some thoughts on the following questions:

  1. According to Google, the prices for the 5D range from $2,666 - $3740. Around the $3,500 mark are from local stores. For example, Teds and JB hifi sell it for around $3,500. Are the lower prices always going to be grey imports? For example: "Techrific Australia" have it for $2674 but don't mention if it's a grey import or not, but do say there is a 12 month warranty. My preference is not buying a grey import for the body. Just a little confused at the options here. Also, any tips on getting the best deal on the body?

  2. Would you buy grey imports for lens? I'm not so worried about this and think I may do so.

  3. Tossing up between Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM (about 1,500-2,000) or EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (about 400!). The 1.2 is awesome. But so much more expensive. Thoughts? EDIT 4: the sigma art 50mm was suggested below and is much nicer than either of these lenses. Now considering that.

Finally, take the poll to log your current brand of DSLR!

Cheers

EDIT 2
Just had a look in a few stores and chat to salemen and they all said the tamron isn't the way to go like HAL said. Instead they suggest the Canon 24-105.

As for the feel of the camera, it's awesome. I've always used a SLR since film, so it just felt right to me, even with the beefy sigma 50mm art. Both people recommended the sigma over both canon 50mm. I'll do some more research on the 24-105 and the sigma. Thanks for all your suggestions so far, it's been very helpful.

Poll Options

  • 70
    Nikon
  • 81
    Canon
  • 11
    Olympus
  • 10
    Pentax
  • 22
    Sony
  • 1
    Mamiya
  • 1
    Sigma
  • 1
    Leica
  • 0
    Hasselblad
Electrical & Electronics

Comments

  • CyberMurning on 16/10/2014 - 00:24
    +2

    do more research on good grey importer, dwi citiwide kogan cameraparadise etc.
    buy from overseas will save you $500+

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 07:25

      Thanks will do.

  • HAL on 16/10/2014 - 01:40
    +3

    Wow thats a massive upgrade in terms of tech + weight/bulky-ness…

    My concern would be are you 100% sure about this upgrade? Kit everything to Pro-consumer is a huge leap…

    Would it be more wise making incremental upgrades rather than a big leap? That way you can test the waters to see if that set up is right for you…

    Any particular reason for the 16-300mm lens? I personally have a 17-55(f2.8) and a 70-200L(f4), and prefer that set up as I get really crisp images throughout the range.

    Curious to find out what other's view points are… I personally would invest in glass not the body, good glass can last a lifetime… bodies you throw away after a few years…

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 07:21

      As for the jump in technology, I'm after something with great low light performance and really good Al cervo auto focus and tracking auto focus. The size doesn't worry me too much.

      However, I do need to check the compatibility with the tamron and the focus points. I've researched the other models out there and decided this one caters everything that I want. I am trying to buy a body that will last me the next 5-10 years. Too optimistic?

      As for the 16-300, I know multi focals are a sacrifice on quality but this is mainly for travel and I find that I'm more likely to get the shot with a lens like this than if they I'm constantly having to change. The tamron is a good trade off between quality and price. When I can I'll strap on the prime though.

      I also agree in investing in good glass, hence why I want the 1.2 50mm! If I was rich? The 1.0 50mm. Oh the Bokeh! But I also feel a good body is important.

      Cheers

      • plmko on 16/10/2014 - 08:04
        +1

        " I'm after something with great low light performance and really good Al cervo auto focus"

        You should have a look at the Mirrorless alternatives, much cheaper and do exactly your primary purpose. A7 for example does better tracking focus than the 5D M3 in certain areas but it's only one third the price.

        " I am trying to buy a body that will last me the next 5-10 years."

        No you're not being optimistic, it's doable, but why? This is the old way of thinking, with things moving so quickly why not buy cheaper bodies and sell them to upgrade, after all it's the lens that matter and what you should be keeping.

        • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 08:41
          +2

          Mirrorless tech is still in its teen years. Although they are getting good, SLR is my preference.

        • p1 ama on 17/10/2014 - 21:03
          +1

          @bargdebarg: In fact, they're not at all! Mirrorless cameras have been around since before SLRs! It's a surprise isn't it? Before people started shooting film SLRs, people shot rangefinders which are mirrorless cameras (i.e. they did not have pentaprisms). The current crop of mirrorless cameras are just the digital evolution of the old rangefinder cameras.

        • Dave Bowman on 18/10/2014 - 10:02
          +1

          I really had to hold myself back on the last A7 sale. It looks great, but the only downside for me is that I'd need an adapter for my Canon lenses. Throwing an adapter + lens onto the A7 will make it really unbalanced. I want Canon to release a decent full-frame mirrorless with EF mount.

        • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 00:40

          @paulsterio: Fair point. What about pro grade digital mirrorless though?

        • p1 ama on 19/10/2014 - 18:06

          @bargdebarg: Pro-grade digital mirrorless will probably never exist because of the inherent disadvantages of mirrorless. I know I'm probably going to get a bit of hate for saying this, but there's a reason why SLRs won the war with the rangefinders back in the 35mm film days. They allowed users to "frame through the lens", with rangefinders, whenever you use a long focal length, you actually wouldn't be able to see what picture you would end up with because of the parallax effect. Sure, those who shot rangefinders long enough could probably have a feel for it, but when you shoot professionally and missing a shot is the difference between having food to eat for the week or not, you don't want to be missing shots like that. That's why all the news and sports pros who used tele lenses went SLR. The rangefinders were mostly used for street photography and stuff which required wide lenses.

          These days, digital mirrorless has seemed to solve the biggest issue with rangefinders, that you couldn't tell what you were shooting if you were using a tele, but they still have several other problems including lag and slightly slower focusing. If you want to know what it's like to use a mirrorless, use your DSLR in Live View, that's essentially what digital mirrorless cameras are. There's also a lack of tele lenses for mirrorless but adaptors exist. You lose autofocus and other features though.

          At the end of the day, I think mirrorless will end up occupying a space between DSLRs and point and shoots, perhaps driving point and shoots out of the market. (That said point and shoots are mirrorless, they just have tiny sensors).

        • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 18:15

          @paulsterio: Appreciate the run down. I guess because I grew up with SLR's I have a soft spot for them and just love the feel of them. I must admit the Fuji X-T1 suggested below shows that the electronic viewfinders have come a long way since my little Fuji play around mirrorless 4 mega pixel (my first digi cam) while I was shooting film SLR still. I think I'll end up sticking to SLR, but I'll keep them in mind before I decide on my new rig.

      • HAL on 16/10/2014 - 08:41
        +2

        24-105 F4 L IS is a great all round lens especially on a full frame, 5DMK2 came with it in a kit… not sure about the MK3

        I hope you don't mind if I play devil's advocate, I'm confused about your set up…

        You are buying a ~$3-3.5k body, but an ~$800 lens to use on it for travel?!? Seem like a huge waste to me…

        Focus + Low Light performance you will see more difference from a good lens than a good body

        • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 09:03

          Buying the body to last for years. Will buy more prime lens over the years, for example a wide angle prime (perhaps a Zeiss).
          Tamron to offset weight of body and avoid changing lens while out and about during day. Body will still give me access to good iso range and low noise plus excellent focus options. For the price, very good reviews.
          Plus I'll have the 50mm for use when I can change the lens.

        • HAL on 16/10/2014 - 10:17
          +2

          @bargdebarg: You sound quite focussed on the body, personally I would look at what lens suit my needs first, then the body…

          In a few years most of the functions on the 5DMK3 will have filtered down, it is really worth investing in a body and expecting it to last?

          On a side note you could possibly make some money back by buying a 5DMK3 kit and selling the 24-105L lens.

        • algy on 16/10/2014 - 20:23
          +1

          @bargdebarg: You've got it the wrong way around, most of your budget should go toward a lens or 2, and then but a suitable body. Maybe get a 5D Mk2, and then upgrade your lens significantly? I really recommend a 24-105L

        • msmhw on 17/10/2014 - 09:40
          +2

          @algy: agree with algy and HAL.
          Great lens + low body better than low lens + great body

      • NeoWilson on 18/10/2014 - 16:38
        +1

        I am in the same situation as you are, have had the D3100 and kit lenses for a good 4-5 years now. I have been wanting to upgrade to FF but haven't found a good enough reason as going from D3100 to D800 is a huge leap.

        My ideal/realistic body is D610, it's FF, it's ~1000$ cheaper than the D800 and may be 800$ cheaper than the MK3. You can buy good accessories e.g sturdy tripod, filters, camera/lenses bag, flash if you don't have them already

        Also don't buy it now, Boxing day sale is coming up, I remember DIGIDirect (australian stock) had 10% off store wide sale. Or you can try DWI, not OZ stock but the reviews online are generally positive.

        Cheers

        • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 18:25

          Cool. I am willing to wait!

  • djones145 on 16/10/2014 - 08:07
    +1

    question is
    where will you be travelling and how
    what photo's do you want to take?

    reason for the first question, is the camera is heavy and plus the lens, you'll need a special bag,
    the camera will be heavy
    you ur backpacking a lot its gonna be heavy

    what photo's do you want to take?
    I have a 50mm and barely use it on travel (1.4) I don't have a full frame boby though (7D) and its wasted on travelling photo's, great for portriats

    on the mark 3 it might be ok

    I do have a 15 (or 18)-55 USM lens, great for shots, but prolly wished I got something with slightly more zoom (24-104)

    as for brands, I got the same one as what my friends use, cause we can share stuff

  • Paul Atreides on 16/10/2014 - 08:24
    +1

    1. Yes, that seems like a grey import. You can wait for JB to have their 15% of camera bodies which will reduce the price a little. I'd also keep in mind that the 5D3 has been out for quite a while now, so could be superseded soon.

    2. Maybe, but how much are you really saving here? I'd pay a little more for AUS warranty.

    3. Throw in the Sigma 50mm 1.4 A into consideration if you are open to third party lenses. Read reviews on all of them and see which one has strengths that suit your shooting style.

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 09:06

      Yeah the fact it's been out for a while had been a concern of mine also.

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 10:47

      Just had a look at the sigma, awesome!

  • BuyoTheCat on 16/10/2014 - 08:51
    +1

    Tamron 16-300mm is for a cropped sensor camera. you will need the 28-300mm.

    Full frame is good, only if there is a real reason for needing a full frame. If you are mainly going to be using a 28-300mm on the 5DIII, I will suggest that you stick with your D3100.

    The 5D is a pain to be carrying on holidays. My travel light kit is a Fuji Xpro and XM1. Travel EVEN lighter is Ricoh GXR P10 and 28mm A12

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 09:07

      Oh thanks for that about the different tamron model for full frame. So far I'm just doing online research and hadn't picked that up.

      I'll give it some more thought about the bulk of the 5d as everyone is saying that.

      For me photography is an important part of travel. If the rental prices for the 5D weren't so ridiculously expensive for a weekend, I'd give it a test drive to see how much of an impact it really makes.

      I get your point though - with a pro camera, you should be using pro lenses…but the conundrum I'm in is that I don't want to invest in Nikon lenses!

      • djones145 on 16/10/2014 - 09:59
        +1

        head into a local store and playa round with the 5D, try carry it around for a while and see what you think, also get them to place a decent lens on it and not a light kit lens

        also if photography is as important as travelling, change lens should be the least of your worries as you should be using the right lens for the right shot, and not one that give you decent shots for all

  • SuperMick on 16/10/2014 - 10:07
    +1

    About 2 years ago I upgraded from a Nikon D80 to a D800. At that time the D800 was about $4000. I heard Gerry Harvey saying on the TV that they would beat anyone's price. I normally by from Ryda in Sydney, although I live in WA. Ryda had the D800 for $3415. I phoned Harvey Norman in Bunbury and told them Ryda's price, and said what can you do. They told me $3405, I was going to Bunbury that week so I went I and said that I would give him $3400 if he would throw in a battery. Off he went to his boss and came back, saying if I give a deposit, then its a deal. I paid $400 and about 2 weeks later paid the $3000 and picked up the camera.
    I personally would not buy a grey import. Nikon give a 2 year warranty, I don't know about other makes, but paying that sort of money, I need to know that if I have problems, then it will be fixed. I'm now looking at buying a Nikon D4, and probably will go down the same buying process.

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 11:03

      Nice price matching story! Yeah, exactly why I'm thinking no to grey on the body.

  • nightshade0 on 16/10/2014 - 14:06
    +1

    Any reasons why you are switching camps from Nikon to canon?

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 19:13

      I looked at both top of the range dslr models and canon won. Also, I am not attached to either brand as only at entry level currently. I quite like the layout of the canon.

  • BiotBargin on 16/10/2014 - 19:22
    +2

    Panasonic GH4 :)

    Canon 50mm f1.4 is ample anyway for a prime, especially if its a hobby….i have the f1.8 and it to is bang for buck gold - really have to consider how much low light work you expect to do. I still hang on to my 50D because in some aspects its better spec to some of the later Canons.

    We all dream of owning or holding a Phase One tho :) heheheh

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 20:55

      Phase one….now we're talking!!!

  • zeomega on 16/10/2014 - 20:53
    +1

    Depends on your style of shooting, what do you like shooting?
    I personally have a few lenses, but to be honest, it's heavy.

    My "daily" is 5d3 + 16-35 f2.8 and 50 1.2. All the rest of the crap like the 70-200 f2.8 ii etc stays at home unless i'm shooting for an event or such.

    50 1.2 vs 1.4 … honestly ….. i still like the 1.2… but it does take getting used to.. the 50 1.4 is a much faster lens focusing wise.

    • bargdebarg on 16/10/2014 - 20:57

      Landscape, animals (especially dogs), macro, portrait. Occasionally I like to muck around with a zoom and shoot birds and other wildlife but not seriously.

      • zeomega on 17/10/2014 - 10:01
        +1

        To go into birding… you need loads and loads of $$, patience and time. So let's skip that

        Landscape, a good tripod with wide angle for your typical pivot type landscapes, consider 24-70 as a daily.

        Animals (dogs), i use my 70-200 generally to track "action" shots. A 135 F2, is a stellar performer, do consider the lens over the 70-200.

        Macro, lol, not much experience, but essentially good lighting (multiple strobes/reflectors) or if static, a good light tent with high CRI cfls will do. Oh yeah and a really clean sensor.

        Portrait, IMHO nothing does portraits better than the 85mm 1.2. It's an amazing lens, bloody heavy and slow. If you thought the 50 1.2 is slow… wait till you try the 85 1.2. The 135 F2 is a fantastic bit of kit too. These tho can be replaced by the 70-200 as well. Depends on how you do your portraits, studio style or outdoors.

        Eventually your kit will build up… and you'll realise what you like to use and carry. And also how much ridiculous $$ you've spent.

  • jaydeenturk on 16/10/2014 - 23:59
    +1

    Definitely invest more on glass than body. If you feel you really need the 5dmk3 maybe wait until boxing day sales come along and haggle with JBHIFI to get a decent bundle? Did that last year when canon had a summer cashback offer.

    Also, if you do feel the need to buy grey import you should definitely get MackCam Diamond warranty. Correction, with any camera you buy, mackcam should be something to consider. It gives you 3 years of coverage including accidental damage. A bit of a long process but it's worth it if anything was to happen to your gear.

    • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 09:50

      Thanks, will check the MackCam our, hadn't heard of that.

      • zeomega on 17/10/2014 - 10:02
        +2

        I'd skip maccam as they're a hit an a miss if you have home insurance. Add your kit to your home insurance and in the event it gets lost of damaged, instant replacement.

  • mooboy on 17/10/2014 - 01:01
    +2

    Agree with ndr2h regarding Nikon D810, or even the new D750 as better choices than the current 5DMk3 - I'm sure Canon will respond to these two soon enough. But since you mention landscape first, I really think the Nikon D810 would be the best for you.

    Regarding the 50mm prime, have you also considered the new Sigma 50mm ART f/1.4? It's a heavy beast, but really does put both Canon and Nikon offerings to shame - but not as good as the Zeiss Otus as some like to claim.

    • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 07:29

      Ok will have another look at the Nikon line up just to be sure. When I did.my initial research, Canon won, but perhaps I've missed some facts.

      Yes, madmouse mentioned the sigma, I tried it out and it's awesome. Agreed it does shame Nikon and Canon offerings. I didn't look at the Zeiss Otus, but I'm going to guess it out of my price range.

      • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 09:35

        The d750 doesn't have such natural an iso range at first glance, haven't had time to have a close look at the actual noise comparison though.

  • hj0809 on 17/10/2014 - 01:43
    +1

    How old are you? Have you ever shot film?

    • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 07:25

      30, but why do you ask? Yes, I shoot a little film with my current camera with rather poor results. I basically grab moments only and not extensive shooting.

      • jzdhgkd on 17/10/2014 - 18:39
        +2

        I think he meant film = 35mm film as opposed to video films

        • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 23:29

          Ah. Yeah, film back when I was 12-20. I love it, see below post. However, I wouldn't consider it now due to cost of development and mucking around. I love the digital world too much.

        • hj0809 on 22/10/2014 - 01:45

          @bargdebarg: Have you considered getting into rangefinders? Maybe a Leica M3/Zeiss ikon? It will allow you to use all M-mount lenses. A 21mm for landscape, 35/50 for portrait? If you have the money, go for the M9

          Leica lenses are the only ones that will /increase/ in value (if you buy second hand).

        • p1 ama on 22/10/2014 - 15:56

          @hj0809: Don't get me started on Leica shooters. Leica is essentially a more extreme version of someone like Apple. Even saying that is an insult to Apple. At least Apple makes stuff that is competitive (arguably better) than other things on the market. The current Leica M9 doesn't stand up to anything on the market, let alone be worth its price tag.

          Leica was great like 60 years ago when they introduced their Leica M3. However, the world has moved away from rangefinders and the Nikon F essentially killed Leica, subsequent cameras from Nikon and Canon have nailed the coffin and buried them. Leica also produces other things apart from cameras and has a cult following, allowing it to survive to this day. They should have gone out of business a long time ago.

          Leica's current products do not stand up to market scrutiny. If you want a 'rangefinder' style mirrorless digital, get something from Fuji - e.g. an XE-2. Leica's M9 is simply inferior to what is available on the market. There's no reason to buy a Leica. Anyone who gives reasons like "they're good to shoot with"…etc. are just simply propping up Leica. This is not a real reason.

  • Dave Bowman on 17/10/2014 - 07:56
    +2

    Hey mate, good to hear. I upgraded to the 5DIII from a 7D and it's a beautiful camera. I have also used the D800, but for me the features and ergonomics of the Canon far outweigh the Nikon, unless you're really wanting the 36MP.

    1 - I bought mine from DWI (grey import) as the savings outweighed the potential warranty convenience. Any of those cheaper sites will be grey import, even though they sometimes go on about being Australian owned.

    2 - I've bought all of my canon lenses from DWI as well for the same reason. For Sigma, I've used dcxpert on eBay who have some well-priced new and second hand lenses with Aus warranty (http://stores.ebay.com.au/dcxpert).

    3 - Canon's 24-105 is my favourite and most versatile lens. I highly recommend using L glass for the 5D, you won't regret it. For 50mm, I have a Sigma 1.4 and it's awesome, however I mostly use it from 1.8 as 1.4 can sometimes be a bit soft. If your main focus is travel and zoom, I'd go with the Sigma 50 and use the savings for the Canon 24-105.

    Edit: I also recommend Mack Diamond warranty for the body if you can afford it. I haven't needed to use it yet, but it's still nice to have just in case.

    • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 09:46

      I really liked the feel and button layout of the Canon also. I hear a lot of good feedback for the L glass. Totally gone off the tamron and Canon 50mm now! I'll update the main topic.

      Thanks for the info on greys. Very helpful indeed. There may be one shop in Melbourne that can do the body for 2999 if I buy the sigma for 979.

  • frondono on 17/10/2014 - 10:02
    +1

    the lenses should match your camera if your getting the 5dmk3. your probably looking at at least $10,000 for a versatile set up with accessories. I've been out of the lens game for a bit an I know there is always the latest and greatest coming out. but I would probably be looking at a nice 50mm I've heard good things about the sigma 1.4, for the telephoto again I would get the sigma sports 120-300mm 2.8 with the 1.4x & 2x teleconverters and some sort of general purpose 28-90mm 2.8 or the canon 24-105mm 4. I think it's the lenses are the most important when buying a camera of such calibre as you can always keep them when you outgrow your camera and upgrade to the next

  • schwinn on 17/10/2014 - 11:30
    +3

    Hmm sounds like a bit of GAS (Gadget Acquisition Syndrome).

    I've lived with my D90, and accumulated a fair bit of lenses, and been in photography long enough to understand that if I am not reaching any limit (if I am not needing more low-light/DOF/shutterspeed/pixels etc beyond what my hardware can buy), there is no need to upgrade (since I am tight for money!)

    Current gear:
    Nik d90
    nik 17-55 1.8
    nik 50mm 1.8
    nik 35 1.8
    tokina 11-16 2.8
    kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200)

    Nik V1 (thanks OzB for the DJ deal!)
    1 nik 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6
    1 nik 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6
    FT-1 adaptor

    sb600
    sb900
    old slik tripod (with missing base plate)
    gorillapod

    I can see that you have not included some other basic gear, like tripods or flash, which would be essential when travelling,

    If I had to upgrade right now, and had the money to do so, I'd go for a 610 and 50 prime and 85 prime, basically because I am chasing DOF/bokeh in most of my shots.

    To me, going pro level gear would mean that I have a specific genre of photography that I want to specialize in, that my current gear has reached its limits, and I need better hardware to get better. However, IMHO going full frame and getting a 50mm and super zoom shows that you've not found your 'niche' yet.

    • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 10:15

      Very good suggestion with the Nikon D610 - just researched it quite a bit and the noise on it beats the 5D.

      I am rethinking my rig after this thread so a cheaper body would be a plus. One day I would like the mp-e 65mm for Canon, but that's a dream and for now I'm thinking of can use Kenko extension tubes and a flash diffuser.

      An interesting video basically saying how Nikon bodies are superior over Canon atm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE&list=PLwIVS3_dKV…

  • johnno07 on 17/10/2014 - 11:40
    +4

    I use a full frame Sony A7 and absolutely love it. I basically use only two lenses with it - the Zeiss 55mm and the Voigtlander Super-Wide 15mm (manual). All I need for the things I shoot. For a FF camera, the A7 is very small. Really is only as large as it needs to be to fit the sensor. It's certainly not at full featured as the 5D MkIII, but it's also easily $1000 cheaper and the form factor really works for me.

    • bargainjargon on 17/10/2014 - 12:18
      +3

      I'm also shooting with a Sony A7 (among other cameras) and it's great. I love how I can adapt all manner of lenses to it using the proper adapter. I've amassed a few dozen older lenses and even the cheapo/not so well regarded/unknown lenses can produce pleasing images. I have the two native primes for the A7 (FE 55mm and 35mm) but end up spending more time shooting with my old Canon FD and Minolta lenses. If you're a pro, definitely spend on the expensive stuff. But if you wanna just be creative and find out what kind of shooter you are, you can achieve a lot even without spending a ton of cash.

  • p1 ama on 17/10/2014 - 14:12
    +3

    Your mentality on photography gear isn't quite right, especially:

    I have not bought any additional lenses for this reason as I knew I would eventually buy a new body and I'd just be throwing money away.

    Bodies are the LAST thing you want to spend your money on. You spend $3,000 on a 5D Mark 3. In 10 years time, you'd probably be giving it away for free. Look at digital cameras from 2004, they're worth a little because there's some collector's value to having old (first) DSLRs. A 5D Mark 3, in 10 years time, is worthless as a tool and as a collector's item.

    Instead, spend your money on lenses. Not only are they far more important to taking photos, but they are also much, much better investments. You buy a lens, it'll hold its value for years and years. If you're into the "lens trade", you can buy a lens, use it to take a couple thousand shots and sell it for the price you bought it for. Such is the value of lenses. Never cheap out on lenses. Don't buy a 5D Mark 3 and then end up getting a single 50mm prime and a 'superzoom'. You're better off just sticking with your D3100 and buying proper lenses.

    In my opinion, the number one place you should chuck your money into is accessories. Buy filters, buy lights, buy modifiers…etc. You buy a good $200 graduated neutral density? You can probably give it to your kids in 30 years time and it'll still be functioning okay. Then put your money on lenses, finally, lastly, put your money into the body.

    Also, don't buy a 28-300mm 'superzoom' lens. You want a wide-angle, a standard and a tele and any other specialist lenses you may need. I'm not familiar with the Canon system, being a Nikon user, but I've looked up the Canon equivalents of the lenses I would suggest and here is what I can recommend. I always buy grey imports for lenses. It's so much cheaper why wouldn't you? (Prices from eGlobal)

    1) Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM - $769

    If you do any sort of landscape work, you need a wide-angle. If you shoot weddings, you need a wide-angle. If you shoot things day to day, you need a wide-angle. If you shoot predominantly portraits, birds, animals and sports, then you don't need a wide-angle. But it's important to have a real-wide angle lens if you're doing any of those things. If you're not professional, then you can just get away with not having one, of course. But you'll be missing a lot of really beautiful shots. With wide-angles, f/4 aperture is probably good enough because you're shooting so wide that it's hard to shake the camera. If you need to shoot events, your best bet is a wide f/2.8 or f/1.8 prime. Not familiar with Canon, but Nikon have 24mm and 35mm primes which are wide and perfect for social stuff.

    2) Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM - $349

    If you're a photographer, you'll need one of these. You don't really need a mid-zoom (i.e. 24-70mm or 24-105mm) unless your bread and butter is event photography, e.g. weddings. You don't need f/1.2 for an extra 1/3 of a stop. If you think you need it, go borrow a friend's and shoot a couple of test shots. Rename them all random names on your computer, open up a random one and see if you can identify it (check if you're correct with the EXIF data), I can't see the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, so I would buy the f/1.4.

    3) Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM - $649

    Most photographers need a tele. If you shoot portraits, you really need a tele. If you shoot birds or sports, you might want to look at an even longer tele or a faster tele such as the f/2.8. For most purposes, you can shoot an f/4 and it'll be fast enough. If you want to upgrade, you can choose to step up to f/2.8 or add IS to your 70-200 and you'll be set back around $1,200 or so. If you want to upgrade to the ultimate, i.e. step up to f/2.8 AND add IS, then you're looking at $2,000 or so. My advice is to step up to f/2.8. You can stop action with f/2.8, you can't with IS. If shooting in the dark is your thing and you don't mind long exposure times, then go for the IS version, you get around 3 stops improvement over the 1 stop improvement of going to f/2.8. For most usages though, this $649 version is fine.

    These three are a dream team of all you'll ever need. If you need a macro lens, perhaps add that on. You'll know what you need. My advice is to get these lenses and a 6D instead. You save over $1,000 getting a 6D instead of a 5D3, which is around the difference between the lens team you've suggested (50mm f/1.4 and 28-300mm Tamron) and this team. You'll take better pictures on a 6D with these three guys than you will on a 5D3 with a dinky 28-300mm Tamron 'superzoom'. I sound like I'm bagging Tamron, I'm not, I own Tamron lenses, but these three guys on a 6D will smoke the 28-300mm on a 5D3 in basically anything and everything.

    That's my two cents. Hope I've helped.

    • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 16:25

      Appreciate your time and help, I updated the post and I have decided against the tamron for this reason. In agreement that "dinky" glass isn't the way to go! Will check out the lens and how the 6d performs in low light. I am considering the top of the range body to avoid upgrading for as long as possible. I'm not the sort of person who buys gear often, I have had the D3100 for about 6 years. On reflection I could have bought lenses and sold them had I wanted to switch to Canon. I guess I should give some more thought to buying in the "sweet spot" and this camera ain't in it! But the D3100 has to go, it lacks the features I want, even with good lens that I've borrowed (low noise, higher resolution, tracking autofocus, better autofocus, the list is very long!).

      • p1 ama on 17/10/2014 - 22:58
        +1

        Btw, if you're not 100% set on Canon, you might want to watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE&list=UUDkJEEIifD…

        The Nikon D800 is superior to the 5D3 and the D810 is vastly superior. Yeah, I know I'm a Nikon guy, so I probably come across as promoting Nikon, but DxO and other reviewers love the D800/D810 over the 5D3.

        • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 23:28

          I originally watched this video:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRa65Q9nYU
          but I see that one was before the camera actually came out. Will watch your one.

        • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 23:54

          Very informative. Still some issues with the Nikons it seems with lenes but otherwise seems the pick of the crop for now.

        • p1 ama on 18/10/2014 - 10:56
          +1

          @bargdebarg: No matter which way you go, there will always be 'issues'. That's just all a part of the sacrifices you have to make. If there was one genuinely superior brand, then the others would simply not exist because people won't buy them.

        • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 12:16

          @paulsterio: very true.

      • conan2000 on 19/10/2014 - 23:25
        +1

        I ended up with a 6d myself, seem to remember when reading reviews it actually out performed the MK3 in low light. MK3 won out in some other areas but considering the price difference the 6d seemed an obvious choice for me.

        In regards to lenses already plenty suggested here. General rule of thumb is you don't want anything that's much more than 4x magnification to maintain best quality images. So 28-300mm while versatile, won't do your body justice. I use the 24-105mm and 70-300mm both Canon L and they are great. They cover most photos I'd ever take and cost about $2k all up.

        Some of the grey importers are fine. I used EGlobaldigitalcameras.com.au and you can purchase extended Australian warranties fairly cheaply from them as well. DWI were similar so I just go with whoever is cheapest for what I am buying at the time.

  • Brouw3r on 17/10/2014 - 14:14
    +4

    If you're going to buy a $3000 body, please put the money into a good set of lenses. I would prefer to have a 550d with a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 (or f4) than a 5DmkIII with crap glass.

    Are you planning on using the wide open 50mm lens? ie; why are you tossing up between 50mm f1.2 and f1.4 for that price difference, and at the same time are happy to settle for f6.3 on a zoom?

    • p1 ama on 17/10/2014 - 14:16
      +1

      Completely agree. Not to mention that in 5 years time, you'd be still using your good glass yet itching to upgrade your 5D3!

  • Barney Google on 17/10/2014 - 14:45
    +2

    Agree on the lenses before body comments. Looks like you are leaning towards Canon, so just buy L glass.
    You need to decide what you like shooting and get the lenses for that. Every photographer will travel and will need the swiss army lens. In that case, buy the 24-70 f2.8. I'd recommend this over the 24-105 because of the f4 v f2.8. Always go for the one that can help you in low light (that said, high iso on the 5dm3 is outstanding).
    As a photographer you go through an evolution. I'm in the "go prime" phase, so I have the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. That said carrying the lenses around is a pain.
    It all depends on your budget. Paulsterio's suggestions are on the money and suggested lenses will cover you if that is your budget. If it is your passion, then maybe you can find more budget, save hard and get the lens you really want. In my case, I had the 50 1.8, then got the 50 1.4, then the 50 1.2 which I love. I should have just saved and went straight to the 1.2 rather than lose money on the earlier two.
    If getting this new kit gets you taking more photo's and enjoying your hobby, then it has achieved the goal. There's plenty to buy, and learn.
    Enjoy,

    BG

    • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 12:22

      I feel like I'm "evolving" from this thread! Love it, and learning a lot. Could you let me know a little more about your prime lenses if you have time? I.e. Brand and what you use them for? Cheers

      • Barney Google on 19/10/2014 - 00:57
        +1

        I have all Canon L glass. I got the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with VR, but sold it as I thought it was a tad soft. After lots of umming and aaaring, and lots of saving and spending, I wanted to get to the point where the camera and gear are not the limiting factor in my photography. I've bought lenses mostly second hand on gumtree. I bought new camera's off a contact on ebay, where I paid after the camera arrived so zero risk (well, no warranty either). I bought the 16-35 f2.8 but virtually never use it, as I don't often shoot wide (landscapes etc). i have the 24-70 ii f2.8 and use it a fair bit in situations needing zoom. I have the 85 1.2 and use it for quite close up portraits, with great bokeh. I use the 50mm 1.2 prime a lot, especially in low light. I have had 3 70-200 f 2.8's over the years and only sold my last one as someone wanted it desperately and I figured I could get another. In its place, I have the 135mm f2 which is my longest lens, and I use it a fair bit, once again for portraits. I've had the 5dm2 and 5dm3 and can recommend them. I have the 1dx, only because a great deal came up. It has twin CF slots which give me lots of capacity. I may well sell the 1dx in due course and get the next 5d (assume 5dm4) when it is launched. I don't really need the large body of the 1dx, and controls for landscape and portrait.

        My advice would be to decide what you dream camera bag looks like, and take steps to getting those items in order of priority. I'm happy to buy on gumtree and be ruthless in terms of price, and condition. Most of the lenses I get are from ex pro's. I got the 50mm 1.2 for $1000. It was boxed, barely used and included a UV filter. The pro was switching from Canon to Nikon, and had their assistant selling off their kit.

        Also, as others have said, accessories are important. Get a great tripod, because you will probably only get one or two in your lifetime if they are any good but many if they are not. Carbon fibre is better if you can afford it. I'm trying to improve my flash photography and get creative with that. I have the 600exrt's with the ste3rt.

        Great that you are evolving from this thread. Another avenue is to join a camera club, or meetup and take shots with other like minded people.

        Cheers,

        BG

        • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 08:16

          Thanks BG, that is very helpful indeed. I've started to rethink my rig from ground up, including a good tripod and other accessories, like a cheap macro flash diffuser for example as I love macro photography.
          I'll start out cheap with macro though and use Kinko extension tubes. I'd love to get the mp-e 65mm one day, but not straight away. I used to use extension tubes with my old film Olympus and love the results.

          I watched an interesting video about how Nikon has nothing that can compete with the L 70-200 currently. I do like shooting with this type of lens.

          Because I may end up getting the mp-e 65mm, and the point about L 70-200, this might push me to get a Canon body over Nikon. Of course, this might all change over the next few years - so perhaps I should consider a less expensive body than the 5d - but I'll have to try and find one that has as good low noise as the 5d.

          I'll also check out those primes you've spoken about. I've also thought about joining a camera club.

        • p1 ama on 19/10/2014 - 18:31

          @bargdebarg: Just thought I'd chip in because we're talking about gear and I've bought and sold so much gear over my time.

          I currently use a Nikon D600 full frame. It's the same thing as a D610, I got a good deal when they were running it out. I had a choice of a D600, D800 or D810. I think a D800/D810 isn't for me, they're big and heavy and are more for landscape shooters who really need those megapixels. I don't, so the D600 makes great sense.

          In terms of lenses, this is what I own:

          • Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D - I only use this to shoot portraits, so people pictures, not pictures of things, so I don't need VR because I always use a reasonably fast shutter speed. There's no reason for me to get the 70-200 f/2.8G VRII, just double the price for no gain. I love this lens. I used to hate zooms, but I think this one has converted me!

          • Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VR - This is a great lens. Worth the saving over the Nikon version which is $600 more expensive. It adds VR as well, which, again, I don't really use, but hey, it's nice when I want to shoot videos of me walking around. It's actually watchable at that distance. I'm so happy with this lens, I would never consider the Nikon lens at such a big price difference. 100% happy with the Tamron.

          • Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro - Great macro lens. You really should consider getting this if you like macro, which you said you do :) I think it's tack sharp, cheap, small, light and great fun to use. If I was serious about macro, I would probably get the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Macro, but hey, this lens was less than half the price of the Nikon and does everything I need it to and is as sharp as I want, so why pay more? The price is so close to the price of extension tubes you might as well get this as it's a real macro lens.

          • Nikon 50mm f/1.4G - Every photographer needs a standard prime. Just for low light shots, nice bokeh, fun walking around. I love this lens. Great price for what you're getting. One of the best value lenses I've ever used.

          • Nikon 16-35mm f/4G - Great wide angle lens. Not everyone likes wide-angles, I used to not see the point in wide-angles, but in fact, they're not just for landscapes, you'd be surprised what you can shoot with a wide angle. Just take a walk around the city with a wide-angle for a day and you'll end up with some amazing shots. Personally, I think you get more 'keepers' with a tele lens, you walk around with a tele, you generally get more pictures which are acceptable. But you can end up getting very wow-worthy photos with a wide angle. This lens is tack sharp, great optics, good build quality. Much more practical than the huge 14-24mm.

          I've sold some lenses as well:

          • Nikon 50mm f/1.8D - Sold to upgrade to f/1.4. No, the upgrade wasn't worth it, at all. In fact, I've considered many times to switch back to the f/1.8 version, but I think once you're serious about photography, the f/1.4 version is a reasonable one to have, so that's stayed.

          • Nikon 85mm f/1.8G - Used to be my favourite portrait lens, but I've essentially got this distance covered with too many other lenses. I can use my macro lens at 90mm, which will be sharper. I can use my Tamron standard zoom at 70mm f/2.8, which is close enough or I can use my tele-zoom at 85mm f/2.8, so this distance really isn't needed. Hence, it had to go.

          • Nikon 18-55mm Kit Lens - Sold when I moved on from the DX format.

          • Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX - Again, sold when I moved on from DX - I loved this lens though, it's the equivalent to a 50mm on DX.

          • Nikon 55-300mm DX - Sold when I moved on from DX. Never really loved this lens. But it's okay for normal tele use.

          On my Buy List:

          • Nikon 135mm f/2 DC - Legendary lens, I've heard so many great things I just want to own this lens.

          • I also want a set of primes again, because a part of me loves primes and I think I'm moving away from my roots shooting with zooms, but zooms definitely have the convenience factor.

          Btw, BG made a good point in saying:

          I'm happy to buy on gumtree and be ruthless in terms of price, and condition.

          Very good mentality. I also want to add that when I see a lens for a good price, i.e. at or below fair market value from research on eBay, Gumtree…etc. I always buy if I like the lens. I get to play with a new lens and if I don't like it, I can always sell it for as much as I've paid for it. I've bought and sold lots of lenses which I've only owned for a week or so (I didn't even bother putting them there) and all up, I'm actually up $13. So yeah, I've made $13 and I've gotten to play with lots of great lenses, some which I did keep (the ones I listed above!).

        • bargdebarg on 21/10/2014 - 12:46

          @paulsterio: thanks! I was going to ask you this question as I'm now very seriously considering Nikon d610 or d750.

  • rabid on 17/10/2014 - 15:38
    +1

    I considered the 5DmkIII or 6D with 24-105mm lens but this is a better option all round for me (and many reviewers)- definitely consider it:

    Fuji X-T1 with 18-135mm travel lens
    weather proof
    stunning quality
    lightweight

    poor video

    • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 09:00

      A tempting option indeed, but if I went that way, I'd be buying a camera purely for travel. Still, very tempting. Some really great low noise performance and other great results.

  • DarkNexy on 17/10/2014 - 17:00
    +1

    Better to get Sigma 24-105mm f4 ART over the Canon 24-105mm f4 L lens.

    And definitely would recommend the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART as well.

    • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 20:58

      Thanks will also look at the sigma 24-105 art.

      Yeah that 50mm art is amazing, had a play with it at a store and it's built like a tank.

  • tohara on 17/10/2014 - 20:15
    +1

    My question to you is why you feel the need to get a 5d3?
    DSLR's are soooooooooooo unnecessary at this point in time (except for sports/birds/photo journos who need the AF)

    I've owned pretty much one of everything from a 5d ii to an m9 to an em1 to an a7r and i would NEVER go back to a DSLR

    • johnno07 on 17/10/2014 - 21:41
      +1

      I'm curious to know what you use now after you've gone through those tens of thousands of dollars worth of cameras.

      • tohara on 17/10/2014 - 22:21
        +2

        I was a professional for a period now i'm just a hobbyist currently own an omd em1 with the 60mm for macro stuff, an A7r with the 55 1.8 for dof stuff and everyday walk around. And my main camera is a Leica M6 with a 35 summicron. I like shooting film for various reasons but the cost is ridiculous.

        I took all of that stuff to europe with me over the past month along with a 17 1.8 for the olympus and i shot 20 rolls of film and 1000 digi's not including iphone shots. It was frustrating at times juggling three cameras, but each had a time a place where it was most suited

        I've also owned a 60d, 7d, x100s, omd em5 and some other film stuff including some medium format equipment.

        As yet i haven't found 'the one', the em1 is amazing in terms of iq, usability, durability, lens selection and performance but (and i know this is a moot point) the lack of DOF is killer, sensor size is obviously the biggest issue.

        I love the files from the sony, the 55 is an amazing lens one of the best i've ever used. However the AF is crap (i know the a7 exists but wanted more mp's) and the lack of lens selection in addition to how long it takes sony to release new lenses is a real killer.

        The M9 produced the best files i've used thanks to the CCD sensor, however manual focusing gets frustrating although using the rangefinder is easy. Plus the light meter was crap

        I haven't owned the m240 and don't plan on it because the system is just too expensive to get back into

        I'm more than happy to talk about any and all the things i've used/owned/lusted after

        • bargdebarg on 17/10/2014 - 23:20

          A very interesting read. When I go to Europe, I really don't want to be juggling three cameras, but I applaud you for doing so and going film. However, the wife will have an iPhone so that will count. What medium format equipment did you have?

        • tohara on 18/10/2014 - 02:54
          +2

          hey thanks, i could talk cars, cameras and watches all day to anyone willing to listen. Sorry i ended up writing another novel.

          For MF I had a Fuji GW690 which is sometimes called the texas leica, it shot 6 x 9 negatives so 8 per roll or 120. I also shot the Pentax 67 with the awesome 105 2.4, again massive negatives and hard to shoot as the clunk of the mirror was so violent. I have a Yashica Mat 124G TLR but i don't ever use it i'm not interested in square negatives and i also have a miniature Yashica 44a but its uses 127 film which i'm pretty sure isn't made anymore so now its a pretty paper weight. You can buy expired 127 film and have it developed but it costs a truckload

          I'd HIGHLY recommend taking a camera with you anywhere you go especially on holiday, while the iphone camera is satisfactory its really not the same and as having a camera in your hand which makes you think about taking nice photos as opposed to taking iphone photos of random/funny things your see.

          i refuse to use zoom lenses, not for snobbery reasons, but the iq/dof is better in primes plus primes force you to frame your shots more intelligently essentially by moving your feet, this ties into the reason i enjoy film.

          I saw soooo many tourists with dslr's and what looked to be 18-55 or the like shooting literallly everything they saw. They spend more time on their trips looking through their viewfinders than appreciating what is in front of them, it breaks my heart. Photos can last forever but memories are so powerful and bring about emotion. I sort feel the same way when i watch a game of rugby, whenever someone is taking a conversion you'll see hundreds behind them taking videos on their phones, for what? To prove it to a mate? WATCH THE DAM THING LIVE YOU PAID FOR IT!

          In my experience and the reason i use film if because you really need to think about what you're doing so you're invested in the shot, in addition its like christmas when you get the shots backed you've nailed and finally the the look/colours/tones cannot be replicated even though VSCO get very close.

          When i'm using my M6 (which has a light meter) i'm constantly adjusting the aperture/shutter speed just by guessing while walking around depending on where i am, when i want to take a photo i'll make sure to expose for the foreground (the view finder shows two red arrows when properly exposed) and then i will focus frame and shoot, its quicker and easier to change the aperture ring to get proper exposure so i guess you could say i should shutter speed priority. Then the best part, the winding of the film, i think its one of lifes best experiences and i could sit at my desk all day winding the winder. Further to my former point on managing the amount of time a person is shooting, with 36 exposure no flash and the cost in mind it helps to keep me from shooting too much and helps me take it all in which i love. I take photos for me primarily not to show other people, so sometimes it takes up to 6 months before i arrange/can afford to have the film developed which makes sooo exciting getting the pics back!

        • p1 ama on 18/10/2014 - 11:00
          +1

          @tohara:

          i refuse to use zoom lenses, not for snobbery reasons, but the iq/dof is better in primes plus primes force you to frame your shots more intelligently essentially by moving your feet, this ties into the reason i enjoy film.

          I completely agree with this. If you're a photographer you can tell if someone 'grew up' on zooms or if they 'grew up' on primes. Most people who buy a zoom lens 'frame' with a zoom. They just stand in some random position, point their camera at some object they want to take and then zoom till their object fits the frame.

          People who grow up on primes think about what the ideal focal length will be, zoom our lens to the right focal length and then hold it up to our eye and take the picture. I use zooms these days because I have to. Whilst the middle distance is covered well with primes, a 17-35mm and 70-200mm is still really important to me, but I never frame with the zoom, I just treat them as a set of primes in one lens.

          Shooting prime really does help you think and understand what you're doing.

        • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 12:08

          @tohara:

          Yes, my camera is always with me, unless it's something mundane. For thoes occasions, I have my Sony Z1 which does an ok job if the light is right.

          This takes me back to my first camera, a hand me down from my father, an Olympus film SLR (with the kit 50mm prime which produced decent shots, cheap wide angle and multi focal zoom which were average at best). I don't have the model number on hand but it automatically set the shutter speed based on the aperture and the only override being for manually timed long exposure shots at night. I also trained during school years on Nikon fully manual film to learn about shutter speed and wanted to throw away the Olympus! Back then, each shot was about $1 so I was very selective.

          When I upgrade to the Nikon, it was quite late into the DSLR game. So many people had started out with their first camera being a DSLR and shooting hundreds of shots per outing, while I would aim to maintain the film methodology and be selective.

          Looking back, I've become less selective and more of a shutter bug, however I like to think this is due to my horrible kit lenses. They really limit my ability to get the right shot first time, so I have to reshoot it a few times to ensure I get what I need. I really should have invested in a good prime earlier on, but I was fixated on waiting until I upgraded the body. However, I have still got some stunning photos from the camera, but they do need some post work sometimes.

          Having said that and reading your comments, I have still moved far away from my initial goal of being selective and avoiding taking photos for the sake of it because they are free and easy to do. I will endeavour to return to my roots and take the right photo, once, in the end, this saves so much time in post. The new rig (whatever it is) will certainly help with that. It will be digital, but self restraint and a lot of practice before I go travelling will be needed. Thank you for that!

          Lastly, I couldn't agree more about your comment about seeing people videoing events!

        • Barney Google on 19/10/2014 - 01:05
          +1

          @bargdebarg:
          Completely agree on primes comments. Felt it would make me a better photographer and it does. I have to think, and move. 24-70 at 2.8 is a lot like several primes in one.

        • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 14:01

          @Barney Google: Not sure if you use them for portrait work, but what do you think about how a good zoom helps facial features compared to a prime though? I've heard a lot of good things about using a zoom rather than prime. Just an interest of mine, not actually thinking of going this way at this stage.

        • netsurfer on 19/10/2014 - 15:25
          +1

          @bargdebarg: Portrait work tends to involve indoor shots and prime lenses tend to have better aperture and they tend to produce sharper photos. Your subject(s) tend not to move a lot (in terms of distance), so the advantage of a zoom is reduced somewhat.

          The only exception could be that you are not certain what focal length looks good on a person or that person only looks good / awesome at a particular focal length which you cannot obtain with your prime lens collection.

          Pros tend to prefer precision (and knowing exactly the settings required to take the shot). The fact that you are trying with the focal length adds one extra variable to the equation.

        • p1 ama on 19/10/2014 - 18:40

          @bargdebarg:

          I'm mainly a portrait photographer.

          For facial features you want a big focal length. That's why all the fashion pros and portrait pros all use the 200mm f/2 lenses. Some even use a 300mm f/2.8. These lenses are tanks. They're big, heavy, but tack sharp and produce amazingly beautiful bokeh.

          I would say that an 85mm f/1.8 is good enough for portraiture. I used to own one and it was amazing. That said, you can almost use any mid zoom at the long end of or a tele zoom for portraits. I think my 80-200mm f/2.8 at 200mm takes better portraits than my 85mm f/1.8, which is why my 85mm is sold.

          That said, it's all up to you and what you value. I used to hate zooms because primes are superior in almost every way, but I've grown up a lot since then and realised that 75% of why I felt that way is due to snobbery.

          That's the thing about photography, expensive gear is usually for snobbery reasons. Like what's the difference between an 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2? Remember that at the end of the day, what matters is the photo. If you can't tell the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 (I can't even tell the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 most of the time!) then why spend extra?

        • Barney Google on 19/10/2014 - 22:19

          @bargdebarg:
          The good zooms are effectively many primes in one. I love bokeh and how the tack sharp focused part of a good portrait draws your eye. That said, you need to know your lens. At f1.2, the end of the nose could be in focus and the eyes out. I did love the 70-200 at f2.8. Hard to take a bad portrait with that lens. So …., I prefer primes. Don't believe it is snobbery in my case. I love bokeh so wider apertures are possible for me, with primes. Good luck with the kit redesign process. Good that you are doing plenty of research.

          BG

        • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 23:28

          @paulsterio:
          There is a real trap in getting caught up in the detail of gear I think, one which I could fall into! They are important but cannot be the only factor.

          What resonated with me was "what matters is the photos" - so true.

          I agree about shooting at 1.2 for faces, it's almost dangerous if your subject is on an angle unless you're going for that fall off effect.

          But that sigma art 1.4 50mm is so tempting! Mind you I haven't checked out their 85mm yet…

          I think I am still leaning towards primes. But I need to disappear and take this information and go do some more research, going to be fun! Cheers

        • bargdebarg on 19/10/2014 - 23:30

          @Barney Google: thanks again, I plan to update the thread after a little while with the updated rig.

        • p1 ama on 20/10/2014 - 09:14

          @bargdebarg: Personally, I wouldn't pay double the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4. Nothing against Sigma, but the advantages it has over the Canon aren't worth double the extra premium it's asking for.

          But yeah f/1.2 is very hard to nail perfect focus. I've never really shot with one though!

  • MrBillions on 18/10/2014 - 09:14
    +1

    Mirrorless is my choice. Very happy with my OZB Olympus EM1 for photo and Panasonic Gh4 for video. You don't really need both. Any one will do and is great.

    • bargdebarg on 18/10/2014 - 10:15

      Yeah the gh4 is stunning for video, but I don't do enough video to justify.

      • MrBillions on 18/10/2014 - 11:58
        +1

        Gh4 Also not to be underestimated for photography. If you only want photography my pick would be fuji x100t, panasonic lx100 or Olympus em1.

  • MrBillions on 18/10/2014 - 13:06
    +2

    You should list Panasonic as an option.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join