Am I Crazy? (Lens and Camera thoughts)

vengence wrote in post #16387592
How about a EOS M w/ a 22mm then? It is mirror-less, but can't beat the size.

And you can't beat current pricing on that combo.

They make smaller cameras for this situation or this type of consumer... So go try out what u want. Maybe you'll like it

That said, yeah I do think you're a little crazy, ha ha, along with all others that say slr gear are too heavy or bulky. Go lift some weights. Unless if you're 70+ more weight will just build you stronger muscles. I carry a backpack full of lenses whenever I go out for any kind of fun. Only thing I don't like is the amount of time it takes me to take off all that stuff when it's time to sit down and eat at a restaurant.

... Bring the camera and lens that will get you that perfect picture whatever that may be. Ignore the weight. Suck it up.

My opinion. I am sure many disagree as you can see by the responses.

actually, let me put it this way........

i admire those that lugged their 40lbs of camera gear and tripod stuff to the peak of the mountain to get that perfect sunrise. i also admire those that carried their heavy setups on vacations to get vacation photos worthy of being shared on the net.

getting great shots shouldn't be easy. there is a physical aspect to this art, and that makes it all that much greater.

i say keep cameras and lenses heavy. those that want the best pictures should work for them.

again, my opinion.

Scott M wrote in post #16387428
Only problem is the SL-1 is a crop sensor, so the field of view for that 40mm pancake becomes more like 64mm. The OP stated he likes the 35mm focal length on his full frame, so the pancake would be too narrow on a crop.

This is the same thing that keeps me from considering a SL-1 as a light weight solution. It would be great if Canon would offer an EFS 22mm pancake similar to the one offered for their M.

I have the SL-1 along with the 18-55 STM and the 18-135 STM (trying to sell the former - but I might still keep it.)

There is now also a 55-250 STM.

All of these new STM lenses are quite good. The above two that I own I can verify the quality from actual usage.

I have owned all three 5D cameras, several Rebels and the 30D, 50D and 60D at various times. Some longer than other.

Notwithstanding what the specs show, I have found the size and weight of the SL-1 is significantly different than the other current Rebel offerings. By that I mean, the Rebels seem closer to the 5D series than does the SL1 to the other Rebels. (Yes, I know the numbers don't bear that out - but in practice you'll notice a greater difference).

There was no point in my getting a T4i or T5i to use as a casual camera or as a backup to my 5DIII with its L lenses. The size reduction was not that great.

The SL 1 produces beautiful images with either the 18-55 STM or the 18-135 STM. Period. It's a joy to use and evidently somewhat of a secret.

Although I have L lenses that weigh more than the 5DIII body and don't mind that imbalance - I do mind the imbalance on the SL-1. So, after some experimentation, I no longer use L lenses on the SL1. The 18-135 is almost glued to the SL1. Lenses that don't weigh more than the body (the 40mm pancake - which I don't have and the 50 f/1.4 that I do have) seem to balance best.

For a zoom lens on the SL1, I guess I'd recommend the 55-250 STM which, solely based on the TDP tests, arguably produces the same quality as the Tamron 70-300 or the Canon non-L 70-300. I have the Canon non-L but it feels too heavy for the SL1 - though it does produce nice images on the SL1 (and even more so on the 5DIII) edge to edge all the way to 300mm (but @f/8). But, if I did not already have the 70-300, i.e. was starting over, I'd definitely get the 55-250 STM.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #16387393
Hmm, you raise some interesting points. The bokeh/blur is certainly one of the key aspects I love about the 5D3/Siggy combo, and if I can't replicate it (or close) with the Fuji then that might not be exactly what I want.

It may be worth it to use an online DOF calculator to compare what the DOF would be when using an X100S at the same distances as your Sigma. Better still would be to take the time to determine what the corresponding DOF of the X100S would be on the Sigma and shoot with the Sigma at the aperture that corresponds to that DOF and see if you like it. As an example, on an X100S at f2 at a subject distance of 10ft, your DOF would be 4.83 feet. That's roughly the same as f3.2 on the Sigma at the same subject distance.

I've shot a lot with various Nikon and Canon 70-200 2.8 lenses, they are great, they are solid. But I lovee my 135L. I also love my 6d body, its lighter and smaller than the 5d's, the autofocus is great if you don't need all the features of the mk3.

The lack of lens choices and the HUGE expense of many good m43 lenses is the reason why I wouldn't even consider an m43 camera over the average DSLR. Not to mention the cost of many good m43 cameras like the om-d or fuji are astronomical, even secondhand. I know many have complained about weight being an issue, but has anyone considered simply purchasing an older, lighter, used model canon, nikon or sony and continuing to use your current lenses on that for when you go on vacation?
A Canon t3, for instance, is like 2 ounces heavier than a Fuji x100s, lol.

PH68 wrote in post #16384934
I agree.
Recent holiday I used my 60D with a couple of lenses plus the usual bag of stuff on my shoulder.
My wife used her mobile phone or her Canon SX220.
Sometimes you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between the three of them.

You must have god awful crappy lenses on your 60d.

Krichton wrote in post #16387960
A Canon t3, for instance, is like 2 ounces heavier than a Fuji x100s, lol.

Yes, but that T3 doesn't have a 35mm equivalent f2 lens attached to it. Add a similar lens and not only the weight, but the size increases.

There are definitely advantages to all the recent fixed lens APS-C size and interchangeable lens m43 sensor cameras when it comes to good IQ in a more portable package. Its just that the user needs to be aware of the limitations (which in my experience are basically AF speed, AF tracking and control over DOF at wider focal lengths) In my opinion you can get past one or two of the limitations, but so far their isn't a camera that addresses all of them. As such, for what I shoot (sports, theatre and portraits) in addition to family photos, my DSLR is still the best tool for the job, despite its extra size/weight.

ean10775 wrote in post #16388040
Yes, but that T3 doesn't have a 35mm equivalent f2 lens attached to it. Add a similar lens and not only the weight, but the size increases.

There are definitely advantages to all the recent fixed lens APS-C size and interchangeable lens m43 sensor cameras when it comes to good IQ in a more portable package. Its just that the user needs to be aware of the limitations (which in my experience are basically AF speed, AF tracking and control over DOF at wider focal lengths) In my opinion you can get past one or two of the limitations, but so far their isn't a camera that addresses all of them. As such, for what I shoot (sports, theatre and portraits) in addition to family photos, my DSLR is still the best tool for the job, despite its extra size/weight.

Can't you simply buy a canon 35mm f2 or use your current one on that body? The 35mm is small, light, and fairly inexpensive new or used, although probably a little heavier than the fuji equivalent.

5d mark III + 35 f2 IS = Fuji on steroids

I owned the Fuji x100 while it was a nice camera that produced great files it was wonky and slow. otoh, the 5d mark III is easily the best camera I have owned.

So many great suggestions in this, I appreciate the feedback. Right now I am very heavily leaning towards the 40mm pancake lens and giving that a shot with the 5D3 to see if I carry it around more often in my "not really out to photograph, but would like to have the camera around just in case" moments.

I think I'm going to actually sell my 50/1.4 to fund it as opposed to the 70-200. I'm realizing that selling the 70-200 was really just an idea to get the money for the 135L and the Fuji....but the 135 wouldn't really be addressing the real crux of my size/weight issue....and again, that issue is not that I am not fit enough to handle the gear (I'm a 32 year old male in good physical condition), it's the mere annoyance of lugging the gear around which causes me to leave my camera at home more often than I'd like. Someone else brought up great points about the depth of field of the 5D3 & Sigma compared with the Fuji, and in fact that calculation that shows I'd have the equivalent DOF as F3.2 with the Sigma is enough to make me think twice. I almost ALWAYS am shooting at 1.4 with the Sigma.

The thought of parting ways with my absolutely perfect copy of the 70-200 is too painful to bear now. I just got done editing about 500 photos from a friends B-day party, and there are far too many wow photos popping up between both the Siggy and the 70-200. Thanks for humoring my self imposed conundrum!

6D + 40mm > all

For the vacationer/light setup. I eat steaks that weigh more than this combo.

Dave, dude, I seriously think you should give the 135L a try if you haven't. I follow your stuff regularly, I'm a fan. I think I have a good sense about your style of photography. I had a big sigma 70-200 2.8 and I just could not bring myself to take that beast out, anywhere. I sold it and picked up a 135L. Paired with the 5d3 and a black rapid strap, I would throw that thing over my shoulder, jump on the bike and be gone. It really did make for a nice set up with a longer prime. That lens is sweet. Not sure why you would ever reach for the pancake when you have the siggy 35. I mean, you would still be carrying a large DSLR around. I say sell the 70-200 and the 50 1.4, grab a nice 135L and pocket the rest! Maybe grab a cheap little off camera flash set up to play with. Just my two cents. See ya in the siggy thread!

BTW, Thanks for taking the time to share a few tips on your PP style over there. NOt sure I ever replied. I go through phases in my posting.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #16384561
...-Selling the 70-200...Crazy?

I'll give you 1K for it.

I can identify!

thoughts-

the 6D w/ the 40 has potential.

consider the G15 - I'm a fan of the G cameras- sold my 15 to help fund the 6D- want another- but my G9 can be darn good too.

the Fuji x100s = sweet! want!

I am considering the 200L 2.8 prime over a 70-200 variant.

good luck-
Otohp.