11-02-2010, 05:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2010, 05:41 PM by backcountryskier.)
A few observations:
Wide primes are an issue with APS gear. There is no solution, yet. Why not get a 17- something f/2.8 zoom?
Why switch brands? If you stick with Canon you'll be able to share lenses - a huge advantage. If you want a flipscreen you could get the 60D now. It weighs 750 g or thereabouts. Or you could sit tight and wait for the next rebel which almost certainly will have a flipscreen. It'll weigh 500 g or so.
I've got a 7D and 17-55 IS for home use. I have dragged this thing up a few mountains but it's a big brick in my pack. When I go traveling (I'm gone several months each year) I still reach for my trusty 400D and Tamron 17-50/2.8 (plus a few more lenses). It is an awesome setup, but it lacks IS, live-view, and video. I can envision myself in a year or two with a 600D and a stabilized 17-something lens (likely off-brand, Canon 17-55 is nice but it's too heavy for travel).
Wide primes are an issue with APS gear. There is no solution, yet. Why not get a 17- something f/2.8 zoom?
Why switch brands? If you stick with Canon you'll be able to share lenses - a huge advantage. If you want a flipscreen you could get the 60D now. It weighs 750 g or thereabouts. Or you could sit tight and wait for the next rebel which almost certainly will have a flipscreen. It'll weigh 500 g or so.
I've got a 7D and 17-55 IS for home use. I have dragged this thing up a few mountains but it's a big brick in my pack. When I go traveling (I'm gone several months each year) I still reach for my trusty 400D and Tamron 17-50/2.8 (plus a few more lenses). It is an awesome setup, but it lacks IS, live-view, and video. I can envision myself in a year or two with a 600D and a stabilized 17-something lens (likely off-brand, Canon 17-55 is nice but it's too heavy for travel).