Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
- Thread starter KKCFamilyman
- Start date
- Status
KKCFamilyman said:
Hey, Hey, no one is trying to help you here!!!
Here, I've got 5d mk III with some cheap lenses and can use 24-70L II. I've got to offer you in exchange:
# Option 1: Sony A57 with kit lens, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, 55-200, and Tamron 28-75 2.8
# Option 2: Sony F3 with kit lens, Sigma 30 2.8, Sigma 19 2.8, EOS->NEX adapter, FD->NEX adapter, ALPHA->NEX adapter and 3 FD lenses, 50 1.8, and 2 tele zooms
You pick either option for your 24-70. Gee, I'll even get you some money. After this, you have full system, and bunch of equipment to sell and park the money. Great shape, few months old. I went crazy few months ago and built 2 more camera systems, just like you did, but I recognized it, so I went crazy on the inexpensive systems
I blame it on pursuit of baby/fast/indor camera, but I'm not sure that theory would hold water. Now to be serious for a moment, I want to share my experience. Always was interested in photography. Cobbled decent 30D system with few lenses 6(?) years ago, was active, and then this hobby fell along the wayside. Equipment gathered dust. Used twice a year.
My kids were born 16 months ago, and that revived passion. Upgraded couple lenses, got 5D mark II, sold, upgraded to Mark III, got crazy, got one sony system (Alpha - fast Live view focus) and then other (NEX - ultimate lego for grown up, could attach ALL my lenses to it). But in reality, without impetus of babies, I could have been dormant for another 10 years... You need to recognize where you interests lay, because it may happen you don't do much for YEARS. Keeping lenses is usually ok financially, but you'll lose everything on a camera body. And, can you afford to keep lenses and sit on quite a bit of dormant capital?
I'm joking about trade
Unless you're not, I'd like 24-70 II, and I'm not convinced I need 3 camera systems...
Upvote
0
Interesting thread indeed. I can relate in that I am a bit of a gear head on the one hand - but also try to pick my stuff carefully for different purposes. And what's worse: I do this not only with photography but with music as well. Neither I just consider a "hobby" even though I have a full-time job that is totally unrelated. And I have high standards and try to get the best within a reasonable budget that fits my purpose. And the purpose can change. Take music for instance. When I was very active and played live a lot there was good reason to have a bunch of guitars a big tube amplifier stack and a large rack full of gear. And in that world you will hear the same voice telling you that it's all nonsense citing some blues musician who does it all with an old beat up Strat and combo amp. Problem is that if you are into certain kinds of music you need a bit more variety than that. And then stuff gets heavy and cumbersome and expensive. That was pre-digital/virtual amplification. Now things are different - but I still have my old amps and racks available, even though I use a little Line6 amp simulator 99% of the time both live (if ever lately) and in the studio/at home.
With photography I don't really see that alternative yet depending on what you do. For what I like best I still feel like having a full frame SLR (at least) and a few fast primes is what I want to use. And that can get in the way to the point that you don't have a camera when you wish you had one. I really hope the market will catch up with an affordable rangefinder solution soon. Until then I really don't see the alternative while the Leica M is just not in the budget.
With photography I don't really see that alternative yet depending on what you do. For what I like best I still feel like having a full frame SLR (at least) and a few fast primes is what I want to use. And that can get in the way to the point that you don't have a camera when you wish you had one. I really hope the market will catch up with an affordable rangefinder solution soon. Until then I really don't see the alternative while the Leica M is just not in the budget.
Upvote
0
jcollett said:
Yup, that is solid advice. It's exactly what I did with the 5DmkIII which I have now bought since I liked it so much after renting it for a week from lens rentals.com
Big thumbs up for lensrentals.com (except for the "sales tax" part which I don't really understand)
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
1. If the reason why you don't use it is the weight, switching from 5DIII to 6D is pointless - the difference is trivial. Ditch the lenses instead. (If the reason isn't just the weight, what is it about the 6D etc. combination that makes you think you would use it more?)
2. How picky are you about image quality, and how much do build quality and mechanical reliability matter to you? For instance, you might find that the differences in image quality between the L and non-L versions of the 70-300 are exaggerated and that the much lighter weight of the non-L outweighs the obvious mechanical superiority of the L version. You might be better off replacing your lenses with 17-40L + 70-300 L or non-L (or, if 200mm is long enough, 70-200 f/4 Ls - they don't weigh much) and fill the gap with a 50mm 1.4.
3. Do you like swapping lenses? If you don't, the prime route won't appeal. If you would rather not swap lenses at all and aren't that picky about image quality, Nikon D600 + 28-300 lens might make sense - just don't look to closely at the results when comparing them to photos you took with your current gear....
4. If the gear you have now is simply too much stuff and you wish you had something simpler instead, consider a tiny Sony RX100, which, despite its size, is capable of near-DSLR quality (crop, at any rate) - the results won't be as good as what you could get now with your current gear if you used it, but you're not....
Upvote
0
I suggest you keep the 5Diii, at least for now.KKCFamilyman said:
I have had a 5Dc for many years and was looking to upgrade. My favourite lense is the 70-200mm f/2.8ii which is a heavy mother and like you I was sick of lugging all that weight around, particularly when travelling or at family outings etc., so I seriously looked at the 6D. In the meantime, I looked around at the compact options and on the basis of the overwhelmingly positive reviews decided to buy the Sony RX100. It is not only the best point and shoot camera around (IMO) but also a very competent camera all round with a relatively large sensor and a terrific zeiss lense. If vacation and family shots are all you really do then I can highly recommend it and it won't break the bank. And because it is not a beginner's camera it has plenty of functionality to allow you to continue to improve your photography as you use it.
If you decide after a time that it doesn't meet all your needs then you will still have the 5Diii, and a great second option in the Sony.
For me, the Sony reminded me why I need/want a FF dslr and so I ended up buying the 5Diii and I couldn't be happier with my two camera set up. The Sony goes everywhere with me and I pack the 5Diii when I know I will use it.
Upvote
0
No point in selling the 5D3. The weight difference between the 5D and 6D are negligible imo. Plus if you still have the af speed/fps if you ever needed it.
I'd sell the 70-200 and pickup the 70-300L. Longer reach + lighter = perfect for vacation and candids. Not to mention, you could get quite a bit for the 70-200. If I didn't shoot sports, I probably would have picked the 70-300L instead.
I'd keep the 24-70 II simply because it's relatively "close" to the 24-70 f/4 in price. Also you'd have a f/2.8 lens if you found a need for shallow dof. If you really want to sell the 24-70 II, I'd replace it with the Tamron 24-70 VC instead. You'd still keep f/2.8 and you get VC. The sharpness (according to lensrentals) of the Tamron vs the 24-70 f/4 is near negligible. Better value in the Tamron imo.
With this setup, you have the 24-300 range covered. Perfect for vacations/candids.
I'd sell the 70-200 and pickup the 70-300L. Longer reach + lighter = perfect for vacation and candids. Not to mention, you could get quite a bit for the 70-200. If I didn't shoot sports, I probably would have picked the 70-300L instead.
I'd keep the 24-70 II simply because it's relatively "close" to the 24-70 f/4 in price. Also you'd have a f/2.8 lens if you found a need for shallow dof. If you really want to sell the 24-70 II, I'd replace it with the Tamron 24-70 VC instead. You'd still keep f/2.8 and you get VC. The sharpness (according to lensrentals) of the Tamron vs the 24-70 f/4 is near negligible. Better value in the Tamron imo.
With this setup, you have the 24-300 range covered. Perfect for vacations/candids.
Upvote
0
to sell a 600 to buy a 430 would be break even at best so unless u need the small/ lighter size...
Upvote
0
Little different idea...get a good photo printer. Your obviously doing well on income to just buy this stuff as a hobby. When I added a home printer it made me grow as a photographer, I felt like I had more control over the process and owned the photo. It is completely different, IMHO, to hold your print than to just look at images on a computer screen. Another benefit was my kids got more interested and are learning the art of photography now as well.
Upvote
0
If its not breaking your back or the bank keep the existing gear.
Not a substantial weight difference and you will lose more money than saving based on the initial price you paid for the gear.
Also think about the hassle of selling the gear. If you are going for a more substantial gear change then that would be a different story.
If you want lightweight and cheap get the 40mm pancake.
Not a substantial weight difference and you will lose more money than saving based on the initial price you paid for the gear.
Also think about the hassle of selling the gear. If you are going for a more substantial gear change then that would be a different story.
If you want lightweight and cheap get the 40mm pancake.
Upvote
0
scrup said:
Substantial is subjective, it's not just the absolute weight alone but also the distribution of it (like a heavy flash on a bracket or the longer 70-200L vs the short 70-300L). And when crossing the personal pain/fun threshold, 100-200g might make the decisive difference, esp. if shooting for a longer time.
As for money: Of course selling gear to downgrade is bad business, but money is also lost when letting top gear rot in the bag - esp. camera bodies loose value, like the 30% drop of the 5d3 since release a year ago. Cheaper camera bodies simply cannot loose as much value in absolute terms.
Upvote
0
I don't think people who carry their "big camera & lenses are crazy" and am not sure if they are "more manly or not" ;D ... but I think they might be more passionate about photography than most others. I just returned from a 16 days vacation in December and throughout that period I carried my 5D MK III with 24-105, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 600EX-RT speedlite ... I strapped on the "Lowepro Street & Field Series Modular Carrying system" around my waist, which allowed equal distribution of weight around my body, with almost no fatigue from carrying lenses and it also kept both my hands free.drmikeinpdx said:
I agreedrmikeinpdx said:
Upvote
0
crasher8 said:
I'd speculate that a lot more people want/would like a lighter camera bodies, amateurs as well as pros that shoot for hours and hours.
It has hasn't been legit to ask for it because just as the 70-200ii the "the" lens to get of course everyone wants a sturdy, full-metal body that is build like a 1d tank - or you probably needed your head checked. But now that Canon has released the 6d suddenly there are lots of people around who very much like the idea (though not the specs) of the 6d.
Disclaimer: its-just-fine-people-buy-expensive-heavy-gear-for-amateur-purposes-but-ymmv
Upvote
0
Eli said:
+1,
I travel with a gripless 5DMkII and 24-105L. The weather sealing has proven its worth on several occasions in India (dust, rain, sweat).
Depending on the destination I usually also take a small fast prime (50mm f/1.8 mkI), light weight wide (17-40L) and a Tamron 70-300 just for the occasional tele-shot. I'm an available light shooter so I never bring a flash, high iso's and wide apertures do the job for me.
I initially bought the 24-105 as a vacation lens only, but as I took it out a few times to get a feel for it I found that it's on my camera body way more than my 24-70L. The 24-105 is sharper and the colors have more 'pop'.
When the light gets dim I prefer to switch over to my Sigma 50 mm f/1.4.
Upvote
0
- Status
