# Seeking Recommendations regarding camera upgrade



## DGcamera (Jun 4, 2013)

Dear Forum,

I've been a happy user of a panasonic GF-1, 20 mm 1.7, and 45-200 for about 3 years. I would very much appreciate recommendations regarding an upgrade. I'm specifically looking for better autofocus, handling, and low light performance. I would love a large bright viewfinder as well. (I have been using the LVF-1 from panasonic). 

I'm looking for something versitile (i.e. landscape, portrait, minimal action shots). Size and weight is also a factor for me. 

Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2013)

A rebel T4i or If your willing to sacrifice some stuff, a used 5Dc is what I'd go with for the landscapes.


----------



## Zv (Jun 4, 2013)

What's your budget?


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jun 4, 2013)

OM-D EM-5. If weight is a consideration.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 4, 2013)

Zv said:


> What's your budget?



+1 It really depends on how much you want to spend. 

You listed these criteria:

Better autofocus 1DX, 5D3, 7D
Handling 1DX, 5D3, 6D, 7D, 60D
Low light performance 1DX, 6D, 5D3
Large, bright viewfinder 1DX, 5D3, 6D, 7D, 60D
Versatile (landscape, portrait, minimal action) 6D, 60D
Limited size and weight 6D, 60D, SL1, 650D

So, depending on how you weigh these factors, your choice could be anything from a 1DX to a SL1. The 6D might be best all-around option as it makes the list on all factors except "better autofocus" and its decent there, but not great. Fine for everything but a lot of fast moving sports.


----------



## DGcamera (Jun 7, 2013)

Thanks for the great reply. I think I'm leaning towards the 6d and 24-105 kit lens. In time I'll get the 70-200 f4 is and maybe a teleconverter Maybe one prime lens and I should be all set.
Thanks again


----------



## bholliman (Jun 7, 2013)

DGcamera said:


> Thanks for the great reply. I think I'm leaning towards the 6d and 24-105 kit lens. In time I'll get the 70-200 f4 is and maybe a teleconverter Maybe one prime lens and I should be all set.
> Thanks again



A 6D and 24-105 can do a lot! Adding a 70-200 and fast prime later sounds like a great plan.


----------



## RGF (Jun 7, 2013)

bholliman said:


> DGcamera said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the great reply. I think I'm leaning towards the 6d and 24-105 kit lens. In time I'll get the 70-200 f4 is and maybe a teleconverter Maybe one prime lens and I should be all set.
> ...



Good suggestion


----------



## cayenne (Jun 7, 2013)

DGcamera said:


> Thanks for the great reply. I think I'm leaning towards the 6d and 24-105 kit lens. In time I'll get the 70-200 f4 is and maybe a teleconverter Maybe one prime lens and I should be all set.
> Thanks again


Get the 70-200 f/2.8 instead....definitely worth the extra $$'s.

What prime are you looking to get?

C


----------



## Zv (Jun 7, 2013)

cayenne said:


> DGcamera said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the great reply. I think I'm leaning towards the 6d and 24-105 kit lens. In time I'll get the 70-200 f4 is and maybe a teleconverter Maybe one prime lens and I should be all set.
> ...



Only if OP needs that extra stop. To be honest I don't think it's worth paying twice as much as the f/4 unless you need the f/2.8. I'm sure the lens kicks ass but you can get by or otherwise there's the 135L if you need the extra light.


----------



## rihanishtiaq (Jun 7, 2013)

About the lens, 24-70 f/2.8 is also a good option if you have the budget to get it


----------



## Sebring5 (Jun 7, 2013)

6d although I recommend primes instead of zooms.


----------



## Zv (Jun 8, 2013)

Sebring5 said:


> 6d although I recommend primes instead of zooms.



I disagree, limiting yourself like that can be creative but sometimes a job calls for the flexibilty of a zoom. Now, I reckon just one or two zooms will do it and then build up your primes. A 24-105L is prob all you'll need. Then decide what focal lengths you are drawn to. Don't get a 35mm just because it's cool to have one. You'll have to analyse your shooting and framing styles over a long period of time. And it's ongoing. You may find that this year you are more of a tele kind of guy.


----------



## Sebring5 (Jun 8, 2013)

Zv said:


> Sebring5 said:
> 
> 
> > 6d although I recommend primes instead of zooms.
> ...


 I have a 400mm f5.6, 135mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 17mm t/s f4. I rarely use the 50mm. Maybe later on I'll get a 600mm or 800mm. I'm definitely either medium to long telephoto or ultra wide angle. Later on I may end up in shooting differently.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jun 8, 2013)

Zv said:


> Sebring5 said:
> 
> 
> > 6d although I recommend primes instead of zooms.
> ...



I agree with this post as well. Nothing against Sebring5, but I shoot a ultra wide angle (17-40L), prime (35L), and tele (70-200ii). Also, as was mentioned, if you do need the extra stop and/or happen to win the lottery, the 70-200 2.8 IS is a beast. If you won't need the 2.8, no sweat, the f/4 version is a great option as well.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## DGcamera (Jun 8, 2013)

Thanks for the various recommendations. I don't need f2.8, probably, and also couldn't justify the cost. Looking at my favorite shots, I'm often shooting at or near 200 mm on my GF1, which makes me worry that on full frame I will miss not having 400 mm available. 

I suppose options would be a telecoverter or 70-300 lens, but I've heard the former is sharper....any thoughts?

As a prime I was looking at the 50 1.4. 

Thanks


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jun 8, 2013)

I did not enjoy my 70-300. I may have had a bad copy, but I did not want to lead you otherwise. I know of several folks on this forum who still own and enjoy the 70-300, but I would jump ship to one of the 70-200's any day of the week. Other's may have had other experiences with the 70-300, but I still thought I would throw in my 2 cents. 

As an additional factor to my opinion (and that is all that it is). I need faster lenses, I still get annoyed with my 17-40 f/4 at times. Additionally, I rarely go to 200mm, so distance is not my objective. With that, the 70-300 did not suit my needs, but the 70-200 f/2.8 IS did. Therefore, I may simply be an extremely biased individual who did not match up with that particular lens.

I also owned the 50 1.4 and sold it to buy the 50 1.2, but I was less impressed with the 1.2 than I was hoping and kinda regret selling the 50 1.4 in the first place. I would do the 50 1.4 over the 1.8 version though if you can. I bought mine from B&H as a refurb for $320, played with it for ~1.5 years and sold it a few months ago for $325, so it too can be a solid investment.

Hope this helps,
-Tabor


----------



## Zv (Jun 8, 2013)

Sebring5 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Sebring5 said:
> ...



Sorry that post was not aimed at you but rather the OP!


----------

