Upgrade to the 7D and sell my 50D??

My cousin is selling his 7D with its 28-135 IS lens, 8 and 16 GB CF cards are going with it. He purchased it last December and it only has a few hundred shots. I trust him and know that he has taken good care of it. He is offering the whole package to me for $1,400.


I'm currently using a 50D and have been happy with it but have been considering an upgrade. I have two EF-S lenses that would fit nicely to the 7D. Any reason why I shouldn't take this deal?


If I buy it, I'll probably sell my 50D.


Thanks, Jeremy

Do it, cant beat that price, with that few of clicks, and you know him personaly so you can visit him, check it out to be 100% sure.

Sounds good to me!

Try it first if you can to make sure you're happy with a) how it works (differences from your 50D) and b) the results it produces.

Jeremy, $1400 for that package is a very good price, if you only have 2 EF-S lenses, I guess you are not interested in action/wildlife/bird yet, if that's the case, instead of upgrading to 7D from 50D,I would suggest you to use that extra money to get a fast prime like 85mm1.8/50mm1.4 or 100mm 2.8macro and even a L zoom like 70-200mm 4.0.


but then if you really need that better AF system, faster burst rate, video etc from 7D. you should go with the 7D package and you might want to sell one of your EF-S lens with your 50D to reduce the total cost.


just my 2 cents.

I was at a wedding a month ago and noticed that the official wedding photographers (two of them) were shooting with Canon 20Ds but "L" level lenses.


This is my way of saying you might want to take a step back and look at what lenses, and maybe flashes,you could buy with the money you'd spend on the camera body upgrade.It seems to me thatonce you get a "good" camera body, getting good to great pictures is more about the lenses/light than the camera body.


That said, I debated between the 50D and the 7D and bought the 7D and really enjoy the camera. The major reasons for me were the weather sealing, body build, and a better movie mode. Granted, I have yet to use the movie mode. I have since also learned about additional features, such as the ability to make specific microadjustments for each lens on the 7D body (thus tayloring the AF of each lens to your specific 7D body). BTW, the 280-135 IS lens may or may not be an upgrade depending on your current lenses. I'd check out the reviews. I didn't buy that lens, instead opting for the EFS 15-85 IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

Jeremy, $1400 for that package is a very good price, if you only have 2 EF-S lenses, I guess you are not interested in action/wildlife/bird yet, if that's the case, instead of upgrading to 7D from 50D,I would suggest you to use that extra money to get a fast prime like 85mm1.8/50mm1.4 or 100mm 2.8macro and even a L zoom like 70-200mm 4.0.


but then if you really need that better AF system, faster burst rate, video etc from 7D. you should go with the 7D package and you might want to sell one of your EF-S lens with your 50D to reduce the total cost.


just my 2 cents.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Actually, I've only got one EF-S lens - the 17-55. I am still interested in the action/wildlife/bird photography. I still have plans to buy the new 70-200mm, but the 7D would set my savings plan back a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cytoman

Actually, I've only got one EF-S lens - the 17-55. I am still interested in the action/wildlife/bird photography

---

That $1400 will get you most of the way to something like the 100-400mm L IS zoom, and more than cover a 300mm f/4L IS. I think your 50D plus a 100-400mm or 300mm prime will get you better bird/wildlife photos than a 7D with nothing longer than 135mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I was at a wedding a month ago and noticed that the official wedding photographers (two of them) were shooting with Canon 20Ds but "L" level lenses.


This is my way of saying you might want to take a step back and look at what lenses, and maybe flashes,you could buy with the money you'd spend on the camera body upgrade.It seems to me thatonce you get a "good" camera body, getting good to great pictures is more about the lenses/light than the camera body.


That said, I debated between the 50D and the 7D and bought the 7D and really enjoy the camera. The major reasons for me were the weather sealing, body build, and a better movie mode. Granted, I have yet to use the movie mode. I have since also learned about additional features, such as the ability to make specific microadjustments for each lens on the 7D body (thus tayloring the AF of each lens to your specific 7D body). BTW, the 280-135 IS lens may or may not be an upgrade depending on your current lenses. I'd check out the reviews. I didn't buy that lens, instead opting for the EFS 15-85 IS.



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Thanks for the insight. I would upgrade to the 7D for the body only. I would resell the 28-135 to help offset the total cost and to keep my savings plan up for the L 70-200mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cytoman

Actually, I've only got one EF-S lens - the 17-55. I am still interested in theaction/wildlife/bird photography. I still have plans to buy the new 70-200mm, but the 7D would set my savings plan back a bit.

---

If you're interested inaction/wildlife/bird photography then the 7D would be a nice move in the right direction. It has a much better 19Pt. AF System vs. 9pt., faster burst rate 8fps vs. 6fps., better low light capability with usable pictures at ISO 6400. It also has the weather sealing which is better in the field to resist dust and water. This setup new is $1800, so $1400 used sounds like a decent deal, however if you are looking to upgrade, then that Kit Lens is probably a sideways move for you and you'll probably not be happy with it. See if he will sell you just the 7D for $1200.


A new 7d Body could be purchased for $1540 now. The only thing to think about is if you buy this 7D and Kit lens for $1400 then you will not be able to shoot action/wildlife and bird photography because that lens is too slow for sports and not long enough for wildlife, and you don't have any other lens that will do that either.


Perhaps you could sell something or save up to buy the $1900 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, or the $1300 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS, or the $1200 70-200mm f/4L IS. The $1900 with IS and 2.8 aperture would be the way to go for sports, you don't need IS for sports, but it will come in handy for wildlife in the woods in low light, and you could eventually add a $300 extender and have a very usable 98-280mm f/4L IS. This is what makes the $1900 Lens much more versatile than the others, by spending the extra money now it's like getting 2 lens when the extender is added later.


Any of the above 70-200mm lenses will let you shoot action, wildlife, and bird photography with your 50D. However, the 7D with the Kit Lens will not allow you to shoot any of this effectively.


So, there you have it, it's your call.


Rich

A few Months ago, I upgraded from the 50D to the 7D rather than buying a new lens---Best decision I have made regarding gear purchases---I know the general rule is glass before body, but in this case, I think you will notice a significant difference in your images.


My suggestion-----Go for it.


Bob

If you've got the glass to back it up like Bob, then the 7d would be a great upgrade, however, cytoman only has a EF-S 17-55mm. I think the 17-55mm plus a new 70-200mm and a 50D, would be a much better kit, than a 17-55mm, 28-135mm, plus a 7D.


So, here's the choice:


1) 50D Body, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or f/4 IS


or


2) 7D Body,17-55mm, 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS





I would choose #1) for now and then get the 7d later, as opposed to get the 7D now and the 70-200mm later. This way he could start shooting action, wildlife and birds right away.


Rich

even the 7D /70-200mm combo is not very good for action/wildlife/bird, you need something like 300mm or 400mm to get the job done, so as long as you will get those lenses soon, upgrading to the 7D first is not a bad idea, because the price is very attractive, you probably won't get that price if you upgrade your lenses first.

I'm surprised about everyones recommendations. Is the 7D better than the 50D, of course it is. However, if you look at the big picture then $1400 is not that attractive because that kit lens is basically "usless" for his needs, and a7D body is $1540 new. So, $1400 won't get him to his goal.


If he adds a 1.4x extender (great) or 2x extender (good) to the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 50D, then he will have a decent setup for the time being. It's certainly better for action then the alternative that everyone seems to be recommending, which is his current 17-55mm and a throw-in 28-135mm lens for action, wildlife and birding.


The only way thatI would agree with buying the used 7D, would be if he could buy the 7D body only for less money, and then sell the 50D and put that money towards one of the 70-200mm lenses. If both can't be done, I would go with the glass.


It basically comes down to:


Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."


Rich

If you buy the 7D, sell the 28-135 for maybe $350, and the 50D for maybe $600, the 7D will only cost you $450 to upgrade. This is the way I think about it.

I actually agree with you Rich, if he can't sell the 28-135mm for good price then maybe $1400 is not that attractive. it also depends on how much he can sell for his 50D.

Thanks JJ,


Canon sells the28-135mmfor $400 new, and for about $250 when purchased as a kit with a body, so if he gets $200 for it by itself, then I think he did well. That's why I was suggesting that if he really wants the 7D, to try and offer $1200.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by <span>JJphoto

even the 7D /70-200mm combo is not very good for action/wildlife/bird, you need something like 300mm or 400mm to get the job done

---

Absolutely agree that 200mm is not long enough for birds/wildlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

If he adds a 1.4x extender (<s>great</s>pretty good) or 2x extender (<s>good</s>not so good) to the 70-200mm f/2.8L

---

I don't think a 70-200mm + 1.4x TC is the way to get to 280mm, and a 70-200mm + 2x TC is definitely not the way to get to 400mm. Compare the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS with the 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 (ISO 12233 crop link). The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS plus 2x TC costs the same as the 100-400mm, lacks IS, and is quite optically inferior. The f/2.8 IS version + TC costs significantly more than 100-400mm, and still optically worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII + TC is even more expensive (pushing $1K more than the 100-400mm), and while the 70-200 II holds up better to a TC than any other 70-200 zoom, it's still not as good as the 100-400mm @ 400mm (although the MkII + 1.4x @ 280mm is as good as the 100-400mm @ 300mm - which is why I use the 70-200 II + 1.4x as a bird/wildlife lens when it's raining (but when it's dry, I use the 100-400mm).


An extender is useful if you only rarely need that focal length. If you regularly use a particular focal length (and for birds/wildlife, you will regularly use 400mm), then get a lens that natively covers that focal length (the few possible exceptions being the fast supertele primes, e.g. 300mm f/2.8L, 400mm f/2.8L, etc., which lose very little optical quality by adding a TC).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

---

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

---

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I don't think a 70-200mm + 1.4x TC is the way to get to 280mm, and a 70-200mm + 2x TC is definitely not the way to get to 400mm. Compare the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS with the 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 (ISO 12233 crop link). The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS plus 2x TC costs the same as the 100-400mm, lacks IS, and is quite optically inferior. The f/2.8 IS version + TC costs significantly more than 100-400mm, and still optically worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII + TC is even more expensive (pushing $1K more than the 100-400mm), and while the 70-200 II holds up better to a TC than any other 70-200 zoom, it's still not as good as the 100-400mm @ 400mm (although the MkII + 1.4x @ 280mm is as good as the 100-400mm @ 300mm - which is why I use the 70-200 II + 1.4x as a bird/wildlife lens when it's raining (but when it's dry, I use the 100-400mm).


An extender is useful if you only rarely need that focal length. If you regularly use a particular focal length (and for birds/wildlife, you will regularly use 400mm), then get a lens that natively covers that focal length (the few possible exceptions being the fast supertele primes, e.g. 300mm f/2.8L, 400mm f/2.8L, etc., which lose very little optical quality by adding a TC).

---

In the constraints of cost and quality, I think the 100-400mmm is certainly another good suggestion. I think that lens is really an over achiever, and I'm usually very surprised and impressed with the images that come out of it, however it's a little slow from 135mm and up. I think it's a good wildlife lens, but not as good for faster action. If he gets the 100mm-400mm then his kit will look like this:


50D, 17-55mm, 100-400mm and he has a big hole in his kit, from 55mm-100mm which is a slight problem.


We could play ISO Crop Chess:

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens at 135mm and f/5.6
• I didn't choose a larger and faster aperture, because the 100-400mm lens doesn't have them to match up correctly.

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&am p;FLI=3&amp;API=3&amp;LensComp=113&amp;CameraComp= 453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp=1&amp;APIComp=2


Essentially, I think you will agree that the 70-200mm will win in the 70-200mm range and the 100mm-400mmm will win in the 200-400mm range. The 1.4X will give him some versatility and you're right the 2x looks "not so good" on this 70-200mm Mk I lens. I also have the MK II which is at another level.


The choice really depends on what the majority of his shooting will be and where the sweet spot of his focal length needs to be. Does he need a faster shorter focal length or a longer slower length?


Can he live with a big hole in the 55mm-100mm focal range or will he need another lens to fill that gap?


I know for me the 70-200mm focal range is my favorite range.


Only Cytoman can answer those questions.


But I think we both agree that new glass is the way to go.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

---

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

It doesn't make sense if one has a hot body and not nice glass. Because hot body is usually accompanied by nice glass. I'm speaking from a photography point of view, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

I think it's a good wildlife lens, but not as good for faster action.

---

I'd be inclined to agree. I don't shoot sports, but I think the 100-400mm would not be ideal there, due to the relatively narrow aperture. But then, even f/4 (70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC) can be problematic for fast action in sub-optimal light. If you need long focal length and fast aperture, a fast supertele is the way to go, which is why you seem them at every major sporting event. If 200mm is long enough for the sports Cytoman will be shooting, and he'll shoot sports more often than wildlife/birds, then the 70-200mm + TC makes sense. If the shooting preference is the other direction - more wildlife/birds than sports - it's probably not the best choice, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

We could play ISO Crop Chess:

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens at 135mm and f/5.6

Essentially, I think you will agree that the 70-200mm will win in the 70-200mm range and the 100mm-400mmm will win in the 200-400mm range.

---

That's exactly my point. A teleconverter should be an occasional-use accessory, not something you use all the time you use a particular lens. A 70-200mm @ 135mm will beat out the 100-400mm at 135mm for bare lenses. But if you get to 135mm on the 70-200mm not with the native lens, but with the lens at 96mm with a 1.4x TC, or 140mm with the 70-200mm at 70mm with a 2x TC, the 100-400mm at 135/140mm will beat out the 70-200mm plus a TC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

But I think we both agree that new glass is the way to go.

---

I think so, yes.

Absolutely Neuro, I couldn't agree with you more.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

---

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...

---

Thanks Sean!, feel free to use it anytime!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darklord

It doesn't make sense if one has a hot body and not nice glass. Because hot body is usually accompanied by nice glass. I'm speaking from a photography point of view, of course.

---

Spoken like a "True Professional."


Rich

On line price for the 7d without the lens $1539 andcanon offersa $400 or $500 rebate for the pixma 9000 or 9500. The 9000 sells for $499 so you end up with $99 bucks in the printer. With the lens it the 7d is $1799.


I think he is overpriced for the used camera, concidering the rebates offered. Maybee take the memory cards in to concideration. If they are expensive fast cards then that would help, cheap cards not as much.


Take the majoritys advice here, I think for quality of pictures go with the glass first.

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Wow! Great discussion but this is going to be a tougher decision than I had hoped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] [:(] Maybe I should have disclosed this earlier but here are my thoughts. I didn't want to sway your opinions and preferences.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Buy the 7D, body only, or sell the 28-135 lens and net$1,200; sell my 50D and battery grip for $700 and sell the Sigma 70-300DG apo $150. Thatwould net me a cost of about $350. I would be losing the glass range of 70-300but would be gaining the improved performance of the 7D body. I'd lose the range of the 70-300 but as you know, it's not that good of a lens anyway. I should have enough saved to purchase the Canon 70-200 IS II with the 1.4x extender.Add a second body (full frame - most likely the 5D II) in a year or two.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]The 17-55 stays on my camera 90% of the time. Mostly because it is the best lens I have. I shoot my kids (indoors, outdoors, sporting events and concerts). Landscapeand general outdoor photography is my passion. The 17-55 is a good fit for most of my needs. My limited range has limited my interest in wildlife. I'm looking to upgrade to the 70-200 to bring some additional range and clarity to my indoor sporting events - and maybe add some closer wildlife photography. Right or wrong, I have shied away from the big primes because I prefer the versatility of the telephotos. When my passion turns into an obsession - I'll likely add a prime or two.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Honestly, I am surprised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] [:O] I expected the 7D to win hands down. I knew glass was important, but I didn't expect it potentially trump an upgrade to the 7D. Either way, I have plenty of people to blame if I don't like my final decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] [:D]<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Additional thought appreciated - I'll be taking my time with this one.


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Thanks - Jeremy (Cytoman)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cytoman

I expected the 7D to win hands down. I knew glass was important, but I didn't expect it potentially trump an upgrade to the 7D.

---

Lens quality has far more impact on the final image than the body. Consider...the image sensor in the 7D is pretty much the same as the sensor found in the Rebel T2i/550D, and your 50D's sensor was used in the Rebel T1i/500D. Obviously, there are many other factors. But it's a fact that a quality lens and a lesser body will generally beat out a great body with a mediocre lens.


One reason you like your shots so much is that you already have an excellent lens - the EF-S 17-55mm delivers L-class optical quality (although the build quality falls a bit short of L-class). That lens is superior in optical performance to something like the Ef 28-135mm being offered with the 7D you mention.


A side note - you mention indoor sports, and for that use an f/2.8 lens is pushing the edge. Since f/2.8 is the fastest zoom that Canon makes, if indoor sports is a priority you might want to consider a prime lens sooner (inexpensive but excellent value options like the EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 100mm f/2 are very good indoor sports lenses, especially on a 1.6x crop body).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Lens quality has far more impact on the final image than the body.

---

Cytoman, with this piece of advice in mind, what are you looking to upgrade by moving from a 50D to 7D? Is it 'body' features (e.g. 19-pt autofocus, HD video, weather sealing etc) or is it image quality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cytoman

Right or wrong, I have shied away from the big primes because I prefer the versatility of the telephotos. When my passion turns into an obsession - I'll likely add a prime or two

---

You posed your question to many people with an obsession. Take out a loan, and get as many primes as you can possibly buy, and a couple of 1D series cameras body's. You always should have a backup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfnz

With this in mind, what are you looking to upgrade by moving from a 50D to 7D, is it 'body' features (e.g. 19-pt autofocus, HD video, weather sealing etc) or is it image quality?

---

Body features, I would say. For me, I moved from a T1i to the 7D because the Rebel's AF couldn't keep up with my toddler, and I was starting to shoot birds in flight. But, the 50D is a significant step up from a Rebel. With the T1i, when the focus was spot-on the resulting images were excellent.


Similarly, once I had the 7D, I added the 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS lens. Not for better IQ - the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens I have is excellent, and I still use it a lot. But, with the weather-sealing of the 7D, I also wanted a general purpose zoom I could take out in the rain. So it was build quality, not optical quality, that drove that decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

You posed your question to many people with an obsession. Take out a loan, and get as many primes as you can possibly buy, and a couple of 1D series cameras body's. You always should have a backup.

---

"Quilty"


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Body features, I would say.

---

I concur. I guess I phased my post poorly though as the question was more directed at Cytoman. I do appreciate the reply though [:)].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cytoman

<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"]Honestly, I am surprised.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;"] [img]/emoticons/emotion-3.gif[/img] I expected the 7D to win hands down. I knew glass was important, but I didn't expect it potentially trump an upgrade to the 7D.


<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"]

---

Well, it sounds like you have a solid plan now, or at least a lot to think about.


Lets take a look at the Image Chain for a moment. Since you can't gain quality, the best you could hope for, is to retain quality, and even that is a stretch. That means that you have to start out with the best possible image and then transfer that image to the sensor unharmed.


In that regards, light is the most important part of the chain in obtaining the image. Lets face it, without any light (either natural or artificial) there's no photo.


The next most important thing in the chain, is probably the filter. If you have a low quality filter transmitting distortion to an expensive lens, the result will be poor image quality.


If I smear mayonaise on the front of the filter and I have a $5000 body, the picture will be terrible. If you have inferior optics inside the Lens, the picture quality transmitted to the sensor will also be poor.


A good quality sensor is next in line, in order to capture the image.


So, basically, you need to start off with the best image possible in order to have a chance of recording that image properly. That's why a lot of people say, "glass before body." You know the saying, Garbage In Garbage Out.


I'm not even going to attempt to get into other factors like; Auto Focusing, Diffraction, Camera Shake, and IS, but certainly it all matters.


Neuro's right regarding indoor sports for kids, since most Jr. High School and High School Gym's are poorly lit. You will really need an aperture of at least f/2 which will let in twice as much light as f/2.8, in order to achieve a fast enough shutter speed of at least 1/500sec, so that you may limit motion blur and image noise. Again.., depending on the lighting in the Gym, with an aperture of f/2.8 you could take still shots, bench shots, candids, and blurry action photos.


See, it always comes back to light!


"Basically.., the acquisition of light is expensive."


Rich
<div></div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfnz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Lens quality has far more impact on the final image than the body.

---

Cytoman, with this piece of advice in mind, what are you looking to upgrade by moving from a 50D to 7D? Is it 'body' features (e.g. 19-pt autofocus, HD video, weather sealing etc) or is it image quality?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Primarily image quality and weather sealing. I haven't been disappointed with my 50D when it comes to focus and I don't plan on using the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

You posed your question to many people with an obsession. Take out a loan, and get as many primes as you can possibly buy, and a couple of 1D series cameras body's. You always should have a backup.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Thanks. I still have a lot to learn about equipment, and a lot of money to spend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Take out a loan, and get as many primes as you can possibly buy, and a couple of 1D series cameras body's.

---

with current interest rate as low as 3.75% for 15Y fixed,and weaker dollar, maybe it's not a bad idea to cash out some money to "invest" in "L" glasses[:P]