Can't Decide

Thanks for your response. One last question. If I am a novice, would I see a huge difference between the markiii and the 7d? I was thinking of getting the 24-105 lens with either camera. I will hopefully be speaking with someone at a camera shop later today (they all seem to be closing so hopefully I can find someone). I want a great camera/video but not sure if at my level I will make use of the markiii and some of the reviews of the markii make it soud as though I should get the 7d or the markiii not the 2. I very confussed on what to do. I will be trveling to calif soon and what to get some great shots in san fran and the costal highway. My husband is worried that the camera will be to heavy to lug around but I want the shots???

This is a long winded response again. I'm travelling in Indonesia on a photo tour and in a restaurant. I'm killing time. :D The 7D is showing its age these days compared to what is out now, especially if the hype is to believed with what else is to come this year, at least from Nikon. Buying into old tech is expensive as the prices for the 7D are still very high, much like how you can still buy an old Nikon D300s - a fine camera but again, old technology. New camera's come out about every 3-4 years btw. I don't know what the price of a Mk2 compared to a Mk3 is, but if it's anything like the Nikon D700 vs D800, the D700 is about 30% less when I looked recently. There is less difference between the old and new Canon's though (a D800 is not necessarily a replacement for a D700), so a Mk3 would be best if the financial side isn't a vast concern. Don't forget the 7D is a crop frame: if you go that route consider a Nikon D7000 as the alternative, though if you have a choice, stick with full frame, there are sacrifices made when you chop off 40% of the sensor's size, particularly if you will be using it in low light or portraits. If weight is an issue, then at least with a 24-105 you only need to carry one lens! That Canon lens is fantastic btw, though worth getting a 50mm prime to supplement. I can't imagine many people would get a 7D instead of a Mk2. The Mk2 is a phenomenal professional grade camera: the 7D is well below it. Will you be able to tell the difference in image quality?? Who knows! I can tell the difference between the quality of the camera, if I was a user of either, I am sure I would be abe to. If YOU took the exact same image with either, there are differences you may notice, but probably only if you compared side-by-side. You'll notice more when you post-process them. If you want to get into photography, or you think there is a good chance of it, get a Mk2 or Mk3 or D800, shoot RAW, get a laptop (recommend MacBook Air or Pro), a couple of small backup harddrives and learn how to use Lightroom (version 4 is $150 I think). That's roughly what you would need to get some way to making the most of your images. If you just want a bit of easy shooting fun, a 7D is a fine camera, though I the Nikon semi-equivalent is better on paper from what I just saw. It's the D7000. But go crop frame and the 24-105 is no longer a wide angle at 24mm - it's roughly a 35mm 'normal' lens. If I were you based on what you've written here, I would get the Mk2 or Mk3 and the 24-105 lens for my trip, then later, look at getting a 50mm prime to learn and improve your photography.

Just to add - can recommend getting a decent camera strap. Black Rapid straps or similar will make it easier to carry. The straps the cameras come with are horrid and give you back ache if you're carrying a chunky camera and lens. If you can, try renting or using a Mk2 for a day and then if too much, go crop frame. You can get the DX (Nikon) or EF-S (Canon) lenses which are smaller with less glass and metal and consequently lighter. An 18-200mm is a one lens solution, and in reality most people probably cannot tell the difference in results.

I want to thank you so much for all your help!! I really appreciate you taking the time. Yesterday I found a camera store (Penn Camera, an hour away since it seems that all stores are going out of business) I ended up buying the Markiii with the 24-105 lens. I just love it and figured I would go with the latest technology. The advice about the strao is great and after I read the manual and play some I will head bck to the store to get a better strap and maybe a new camera bag (I have a canon back pack but I think I need one a little bigger and better made) I do alot of biking trips and I thnk I can secure that to my bike better but if you have any suggestions on a bag let me know :)...I might can one of those small walk around bags just for the camera as well. I remember years and years ago my dad had a leather thing that just snaped around the camera (I don't think they make those anymore) and it was so easy to unstrap and shoot and fit the camera so no bulk but I'll make do with what I find. My next purchace will be the telephoto lens. I have from years ago the 35-300 (I think) its does not have IS and I'm to shaky these days do I want to get one with IS. If you have any suggestions on that and you have time I would love to hear your suggestions. Enjoy your trip and get some great pics!

Nice. I love new toys and am exited for you! I actually don't use camera bags but use a normal backpack (an Osprey Stratos 24 to be exact) that I have put camera padding in that I got off eBay - it's much much more comfortable and has better general functionality and doesn't shout 'camera gear' inside. But that's just my preference as I need something very comfortable for long treks in the heat. I cover my cameras with gaffer tape to hide/add protection too. I convince myself it makes things a lesser target for thieves if they can't tell what it is exactly. Lowepro bags are good, but there's so many around all covering different niches. If I had one camera and one lens and not much else to carry I'd consider a sling bag, like Lowepro SlingShot series. I don't know the Canon zooms others than they have a 70-200 f/2.8 which has IS and would be an expensive but lovely pro grade zoom to have. You have a pro grade camera, you should try and get pro grade lenses for it to get the most out of it. I'm sure there's something like a 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 or similar out there if your budget is tight. Still think you should get a prime :D 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8 (or as you have Canon, the expensive f/1.2), best lens in the world for the money. You're also be able to learn the art of foot-zoom and composition, it's great in low light and gives nice bokeh. Good for portraits. Primes usually always give better results... noticeably so. Everyone should own a 50mm. :D If you're stuck on anything or confused about what things are on the camera, or just want to learn about some aspect, YouTube is great with lots of people having posted tutorials, reviews etc. I think I'm repeating myself, but nevermind - I think you should only get a 50mm prime right now. If you jump in and buy a zoom now, it won't be cheap if you change your mind and it might not be the right one for you. I would leave it a fair few months, until you feel you have a definite deficiency by not being able to get certain shots you want repeatedly. Don't be misled by that it's likely you'll take most photos at 24mm or 105mm to mean you need a wide and/or longer lens. It's usual to use the extremes most of the time. Get a 70-300mm and you'll probably use 300mm more than 200mm for example. That's why a 50mm is great, it makes you think more about the shot. If forgot the name of the couple, but two amazing travel photographers went around the world and took something like (roughly) a 24mm prime, 35-70mm zoom and 135mm prime - their only telephoto, and that was enough to produce amazing photos. I think the moral is you're limited more by your imagination than you are your lens. I often give myself '50mm days' to test myself and to remind myself to stop being lazy zooming around all the time by 'zoom-cropping', :D

Thanks once again! I agree and when I get my bag I'll pick up the 50mm. The other thing I forgot to ask was you mentioned Lighthouse as software. My daughter's class used Photoshop. Why lighthouse instead of photoshop (in your opinion). I already have a MAC so just need to get software. Thanks again :)

I think you mean Lightroom. Apple has a version very similar called Aperture, which is what I use. They are good for photo file management, as well as editing. They use what is called non-destructive editing. It saves your master file, and whatever changes are made are saved separately so you can go back and undo what you did at a later time. Photoshop is much more in depth, but also more difficult to learn to use. I'm very good at photoshop, but I rarely use it because Aperture is faster for making quick batch edits.

Cool Thanks!

Yeah - get either one. I use Lightroom. $150. Bargain. Aperture is about $100 I think. Both are much the same, though there are a few key differences. Life without it would be shorter. I think you can get trials for both. Google.

Since you already have the 24-105mm f/4L, I'd suggest you consider something like the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (although a new version has been rumoured) or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS with a 2x teleconverter (which would yield 140-400mm at f/5.6).