///M5

Bag, hell, don't look at me. I have about $600 into bags. A backpack, a small crumpler and a think tank briefcase. Shutter count on a non-pro camera is a problem. This and cosmetic shape would be my primary choices. I don't have an extra battery or charger, but get more than 700 shots out of a charge so I don't see the point. Last year in Paris I never used the flash and never charged my camera, think that was just under 900.

This may help: Canon 40d, 10.1Mp -> 3888x2592 so on my 1080p tv I can crop it to 1 quarter of the picture and still be FULL resolution on my 70" tv. Used should be under $200 Canon 60d, 18Mp -> 5200x3492 so on a 1080p tv you can almost go to a 1/9th section of the picture and crop for Full resolution. $400 used or so The capability of you as a photographer between the two to not have to crop that extreme is minimal. The two major (enough so I almost said only) differences are: video & noise reduction. The latter only effects you if you have less than stellar light. How much better I am not sure as I haven't compared, but at least a stop of light and it could be two. I doubt it is more. Would be worth peaking if video isn't worth $200 to you. I bring this up for 2 reasons. 1st, trying to save as much for glass as possible and to make you realize what it means resolution wise. Almost ridiculous...but hopefully lets you know why I asked about printing above.

Just set the single game high scoring record for the year in our fantasy superbowl. I still have Ezekiel Elliot tomorrow too.

Exactly why you need to focus on glass now. The 60d and 50mm will still be valid though. The bummer with that setup is that the newer ones do video better, but that is never going away. From a financial standpoint of buying/selling/upgrading the APS-C is probably bang for your buck. If you end up seriously investing though that would be different.

I've never searched for used fast mirrorless lenses, but putting together a comparable kit over what I would want to own it ends up being cheaper new to new. Once you get into sports though you'll be needing a new body. That won't kill you though as upgrading in 5 years isn't unusual.

Mirrorless the equivalent can be a great idea, but not financially. BH Catalogs make browsing nice.... Sony 50mm f1.8 $248 Fuji 56mm 1.2 $999 Oly 45mm 1.8 $399 Sigma 50mm 1.4 $949 Tamron 45mm 1.8 $599 Panny 42.5mm 1.2 $1597

If you get a Canon or Nikon you need the "nifty fifty" no matter which brand.

If this didn't require an adapter for real lenses I'd probably have grabbed one: Of course, the picture is a good example of what a real lens will do. It is artistic because it draws you to what the photographer wanted you to see. In this case the camera. The rest of it is blown out of focus gentley. Could be a weirdly painted dump truck in the background but it doesn't matter it looks good. Softens across the hand and arm so that you only focus on the camera. I REALLY want Canon to step up and make the true crossover. If so, I'd have one of the above with a 50mm sitting on the kitchen table 100% of the time. An 85 1.8 on my current body in the living room. Bring my wide with the small body and the 50 when traveling. For packing small to travel right now I only carry my ultra wide and the 50mm. 50mm is GREAT for this as it weighs nothing and you can even just put it in your pocket when you walk around.

Btw, if you don't like the 50mm only you can always find an old kit lens for nearly free everywhere. Will tell you exactly what their true value is....but it is hard to understand any of this shit until you actually go and shoot some pictures with different settings.

60d & 50mm 1.4 is around $650-700 used?

There just wasn't a good prime in that range....amusingly where it makes the most sense IMO. Pretty easy to get closer to your target when you are outside.

I have a 17-55 2.8. It is supposed to be the wide to get. I don't like it. 55 and 2.8 is pointless. It does nothing unless your target is WAY away from something in the background. I am never in a situation like that. At 17mm 2.8 is actually nice since really even at 2.8 everyone in a group will be in focus. Going faster in this range or wider is stupid. I do own a 11-16 2.8. It is almost always shot at f11

20 mm, Fstop shot usually 4 or 5.6 so that I get all the people in the shot in focus. Here I'd like to learn to use a flash better to get the shutter speed down and keep the F stop high. 50mm, Fstop shot usually at 1.4. For true headshots, you actually need to go up to 1.8 otherwise ears are out of focus. Step back a foot and you are fine at 1.4 though. 85mm, Fstop I'd love would be 1.8....but damnit I want vibration reduction too because always shooting at shutter speeds of higher than 1/150th is really hard lightwise. I do hate having to use shutter speeds slower than 1/200th for any moving target, but when it is dark you have to start to compensate 200mm, fstop 2.8. Is really fine. Sure You could use a little more without ruining the picture, but I would surely spend dough making other ranges faster first.

Forgot 2 important points in the lens layout above, sorry. Enjoyed cooking/eating today which comes with lots of wine and champagne.

Currently I am a bit sloppy and end up cropping quite a bit on kids. Buildings and such I have nailed okay although regularly there I just wanted something a little wider.

How long will you keep it before you upgrade something? Reason I ask is that the buying price now isn't the only portion of this you should think about. Very possible to buy something now that is killer for shooting the baby and the 2/3 of you and upgrade later as your needs change. They will... The next question of course has two realities. What you want and what you will do. How big will you print/display the pictures you shoot? I for one have never printed anything larger than an 8.5"x11" and the largest my 70" TV.

The 50mm 1.2 on the full frame will gather WAY more light than the 1.4 on a crop...but the raw out of focus portion of the bokeh won't be any different. I am sure that the pictures are significantly easier to get in focus, to limit iso noise (or even be able to get the shot), but otherwise is rather comparable. For some reason the focus on the L glass even on the same model seems more accurate to me. What I mean by accurate is actually focusing on what I am shooting. Generally I center focus only and then compose a shot, but with fast moving kids you CAN'T. Have to rely on the autofocus of the camera. With non-L glass I find that the camera finds something else on the frame to focus on instead of what I was trying to compose. Of course I can say the same about lenses that are slower (higher F stop minimum).

Mike the shot of your wife in a smaller house with a 50mm is about all you can capture. Should give you some perspective of what you'll end up with. If it helps to have me shoot some examples of FOV and distance I can.

I suck at photography, but have shot at least 1000 pictures this December.

Forgot to add I did some tests on the Sirui tripod. No drift at 30sec exposures or 1/4 second. Sharp all the way. Abused it on some legos, lol. Even with the extension it was tight. Obviously worse in the wind, but some mass that you can hang from it helps that.

Tripod and sleeping help.

50mm for babies is better however, because getting close gets a reaction versus killing it. Plus 1.4 lets you shoot at fucking night.

For that 85mm would be ideal. Big Whitey fucking scares people.

You will all notice I left out my fastest piece of glass, the 50mm 1.4. That is because there is a major problem with the 50mm lens...but it is NOT a problem for you now Mike. To shoot a headshot of a child playing you can't be 8' away. Stepping back here helps a ton. Just shot my kids Christmas parties and got some great portraits that I'll share with the parents. The earnest thank you's are golden.

Here is my shooting in a nut shell: -single people in my family friends -> portrait lens -groups of people at gatherings or the fam -> wide -buildings and things -> ultra wide -basketball & soccer games -> telephoto and portrait ie, I basically shoot at 80 portrait, 20 wide, 10 ultra, & 200 tele Out of the times I use them I only need to change at gatherings. Then it is 80 & 20 mostly with a little 150-200 I could get away with shooting at 80.