I know that this is a Canon forum and I'm subjecting myself possibly to biased answers but out of all the forums that I could possibly post this in, I think that I would get the most objective, mature responses on the question. I know that whatever system's board I put this in, I'll get responses leaning towards that one.
I have a budget of around $2,500 or so. I'm not invested in any one system heavily. Going to take the plunge into FF heavily as my experience with crop sensors while pleasant, I want to make one purchase and not have to regret it later on. I feel that if I get a crop sensor (7D or D7000) they'll be fantastic cameras but I'll be left wondering what it would've been like with a FF.
To be honest I was leaning towards the D600 since I first heard real rumors of it in late August and when the announcement was made, I was pretty much determined to get it. After getting the ok from the wife, I was about to get it until...
I had first hand experience with the 5D Mark II this past Sunday. I had family portraits done in the park with a professional who's main subject is weddings but he was doing a family favor for us. And seeing him with dual 5D Mark II's, with a 35L and I think a 85L if I'm not mistaken. I had a chance to speak to him briefly and obviously he's heavily invested in Canon and doesn't have any experiences with Nikon. I know it's one opinion from him but he basically said that Canon are better for portraits and capturing people because they have cleaner skin tones while Nikons are preferred more for the landscape shooters, pointing to the D800E for example. Even he told me that while a Mark III would be great, it's not in his budget right now but the Mark II does relatively everything that he needs it to do. So my thinking got back to 'If this is fine for a professional who does this for a living, shouldn't it be good enough for a hobbyist?' Obviously he's shooting with some serious L lenses that I could only dream about now but still.
I got to thinking and in the upcoming months with the expected birth of my first child and looking back on pictures in LR that I've taken in the past few years with a XTi and compact, it seems that 70% or so are of people, 20% are landscape/objects, and the other 10% are mixed. I don't take wildlife pictures, no BIF, no real fast moving action shots, almost all stationary shots that are handheld. So not having a huge FPS doesn't really bother me. Eventually I would like to dabble in HDR as well. I was originally leaning towards the 7D but not having a need for speed I'd rather go with a FF to start. I do shoot indoors about 40% of the time so having good performance in low light would be fantastic. I don't have any experience really with flash photography outside of the pop-up flash.
I also know the saying that good glass is more important than a good body. With the budget that I have and the upcoming expenses with the kid, I'm pretty set on what I have to spend (outside of the memory cards, the smaller stuff) but in terms of buying a $500+ lens, that's out of the question for a while.
So I'm faced with either
A) 5D Mark II + 24-105 f/4 kit lens
or
B) Nikon D600 + Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 non-BIM (which I already bought because I got a great deal on it but I can just resell it).
I could have room for a 50 1.4 as well. If I went the Nikon route I would save up and get the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR eventually which apparently is Nikon's semi-equivalent to the 24-105 when it's more in my budget.
Eventually I would like to get into macro photography though, so the 105VR from Nikon or the Canon 100L would be my next lens purchase outside of the 50 and it can double as a nice portrait lens as well so that would be great. I don't think I would need a UWA or a tele right now. So a walkaround, a 50, and eventually a 100-105 macro would probably fit my needs.
Both for body + lens would be in the $2,500 range. I know it's not fair comparing a L lens vs a 3rd party lens (even though it's a constant 2.8 apeture). I would rather buy new from Amazon and have their great return policy and security of having a camera in warranty, I know I can score a great deal on the B&S forums but I would rather have the security of owning new.
Again, I'm still a relative beginner to this and I already signed up for photo classes. I know the basic terms and have experience with taking photos but I'm far from an expert. I'm willing to learn and read books, willing to take tons of shots to get experience, but I don't want something that has a huge learning curve that will dissuade me from learning.
I'm also looking for something that's relatively easy to PP on. I already have Lightroom 4 and have been reading up on instructional books and videos on it. But again, something that will give good results but not take hours to extract a memorable picture.
So to wrap this up, do I go with the proven veteran on the block with the L lens or go for the new kid on the block with new technology but an unproven lens. Would I get enough satisfaction out of the Mark II and would the 24-105 be enough to hold me over for the foreseeable future? Or would I get the Mark II and be regretting that I'm getting something that was released in 2008? I'm looking to make a decision real soon so I can start getting some practice in and I don't want to miss too many pregancy pictures. Thanks so much for any insight and I truly do appreciate any mature responses.
