# All around starter kit.



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2016)

Obviously our needs change over time. Our interest in the hobby change too. So do our financial means. 

Maybe this is a silly thread, but lets say somebody new comes to the forum who says he is seriously interested in the hobby. The person still has not decided which genre he'd prefer to shoot, but wants a 1 camera (body only), 2 lens, all around "starter" kit.

The OP states he's willing to spend between $2k-$5k so we all give two or three different kit recommendations at two or three different price points. One recommendation includes an APSC camera and the other FF. 

What would you recommend? 3rd party lenses are okay, no open box, no grey market, no kit lens combo.

I guess the object of the game is to give the new "serious" hobbyist the short route to having a really nice starting setup. We all have our own idea of what this could be or what "serious hobbyist" means.

The reason I bring this up is that I took the long route to where I am and spent far more on any of the below combinations than I did on my 5D mark III, 24-70, and 70-200. In fact, it is almost heart breaking what I spent just to get to those three (before getting those three), which I think I could be completely happy with now. 

1. 80D $1,199, Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM $899, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1,099 = $3,197

2. 6D $1,199, Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM $899, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1,099 = $3,197 (No brainer compared to 80D?)

3. 5d Mark III $2,599, Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM $899, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1,099 = $4,597

For me, the 6D would trump the 80D easily in this situation, but only because i already know what genre I want to shoot.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 11, 2016)

Hi CanonFanBoy. 
I think your three lists are OK given the budget, with the exception of a lens for the crop to give some where near the equivalent of the 24mm on FF. Either the EF-s 17-85mm (good) or 15-85mm (very good) lenses or leaving a gap the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 often quoted as L glass quality without the red ring because Canon won't do an EF-s L lens. 

Cheers, Graham. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> Obviously our needs change over time. Our interest in the hobby change too. So do our financial means.
> 
> Maybe this is a silly thread, but lets say somebody new comes to the forum who says he is seriously interested in the hobby. The person still has not decided which genre he'd prefer to shoot, but wants a 1 camera (body only), 2 lens, all around "starter" kit.
> 
> ...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 11, 2016)

Those people who do not know very well what kind of picture will do, should choose the most versatile body, and they today they are 80D and 5D Mark iii. I think the 6D AF may hinder the development of some types of picture, and sure to be a disappointment in Live View.

So, I suggest:
80D + 15-85mm + 55-250mm STM + 50mm F1.8 STM (costs almost free).
80D + 17-55mm + 70-200mm F4 IS.
5D Mark iii + 24-70mm F4 IS + 70-200mm F4 IS.

Oh, if I had the ability to predict the future when I bought my first DSLR equipment ... I would have saved me a lot of money on inadequate lenses.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 11, 2016)

So the person has little or no skill level? Doesn't even know what he likes to shoot?
How can he be a "serious hobbyist"?

I would tell him to buy a t6i and put the remaining balance in a CD until he really becomes serious and knows a general direction he may want to go.

Then I would explain to him how his 55mm kit lens is really an 88mm lens compared to a full frame. Then I will drop terms like "crop factor" and "pixel density" on him and explain to him how those are all important. I may even explain to him how important high ISO performance is, but he doesn't have to worry about that because if he is shooting in the dark he has a built in flash. Then if he isn't overloaded with new knowledge I will explain to him how he needs to take pictures only in RAW format, and he needs to buy three different programs to process each individual picture. I will also explain to him that if he is a "serious hobbyist" he must never just shoot in jpg, and most of all even though he shoots in both jpg and RAW he can only use his processed RAW pictures (because he is serious).


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> So the person has little or no skill level? Doesn't even know what he likes to shoot?
> How can he be a "serious hobbyist"?
> 
> I would tell him to buy a t6i and put the remaining balance in a CD until he really becomes serious and knows a general direction he may want to go.
> ...



Very valid points. 

Don't forget, though, the imaginary OP is the one who thinks/says he is serious about the hobby. I have to go on what he says about himself and what he says he wants to spend. He wants to know which body and two lenses he should buy with his money. Not me.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi CanonFanBoy.
> I think your three lists are OK given the budget, with the exception of a lens for the crop to give some where near the equivalent of the 24mm on FF. Either the EF-s 17-85mm (good) or 15-85mm (very good) lenses or leaving a gap the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 often quoted as L glass quality without the red ring because Canon won't do an EF-s L lens.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



Great points Graham. I like your idea about the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 for the crop camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 11, 2016)

I think that a new photographer is not thinking $3,000 for equipment, but feels that ~$1000 is pretty high.

What suggestions would you have for this likely case? I know that I started by spending around $1200 and later regretted my lens choices, and ended up buying a better lens and then a better one yet, etc. Its pretty much a necessary process.

Todays kit lenses, the 18-55mm, 18-135mm and 55-250mm are very sharp lenses, they merely have small apertures and inexpensive construction. I was using doing product photography, investing in importing products, and the original 18-55 I had was not really very suitable, and wasn't all that sharp sharp.

I think I would recommend refurbished cameras and lenses from the Canon store for a beginner on a near $1K budget. Perhaps a Rebel T6S kit with 18-135mm STM plus 55-250 STM for $929. I'd also suggest adding a refurbished 24mm pancake or 40mm pancake for around $100. If he wanted macro, then a 60mm macro at $375 in place of a pancake lens would bump him up to the $1300 range.

The new photographer could learn to use his gear, and identify where his equipment did not meet his needs without having spent a lot of money on lenses he may find little use for.

This is how many of us started, I was doing product photography, and found the kit 18-55mm lens was inadequate for that use. I ended up selling my 18-55 and 75-300mm lenses and did not lose a lot of money.

The problem was that I bought a Sigma 17-70mm lens to upgrade the 18-55, and it was totally unusable for manual focusing, since the ring was stiff and jumped past the best focus point. Then I sold the 17-70 and bought the 17-55 and it was great. This was over a three or four year period, so I had a 40D when I bought the 17-55. That combination was wonderful, but I was still using jpeg, that's about the time I switched to RAW.

I would not have considered spending $3K to start, I think that most newbies are in that same boat. As my business grew, I was then able to get high end cameras and lenses using profits they helped generate, and I knew what I needed.

I think that we can help that photographer decide on what would work if he decides to upgrade, but the kit lenses are just fine for the vast number of people, that has always been the case.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that a new photographer is not thinking $3,000 for equipment, but feels that ~$1000 is pretty high.
> 
> What suggestions would you have for this likely case? I know that I started by spending around $1200 and later regretted my lens choices, and ended up buying a better lens and then a better one yet, etc. Its pretty much a necessary process.
> 
> ...



In my case I started with a Canon XSi kit back in 2008 I think. I remember thinking, "Wow, that's a whole bundle of money!" I'd been using a very bad point and shoot. The wife and I were traveling 13 western states year 'round doing hearing tests at factories and military bases. We wanted better photos of our travels. Our job had a lot of downtime for sightseeing. 

That is when I decided to get the DSLR and found the photos to be far superior to the point and shoot I'd been using at the time. The XSi kit was way under $1,000, but we added a (I can't remember exactly) EF-s 55-200? Got that lens for the Perrine Bridge Festival in Twin Falls, Idaho.

As soon as the T5i was released I got the kit with the STM lens and had also got the 50mm f/1.4 and a few other short zooms I never should have bought.

I didn't like the T5i and within 5 months got the 70D body (I had a bag full of EF-s and even a couple of EF lenses.).

I liked the 70D, divested myself of all my lenses except the kit from the T5i and started buying L glass. First the EF 400 f/5.6L (birds), then the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, then the 24-70 f/2.8L II. I was preparing to switch to full frame and was beginning to find that I like portrait taking the most.

Finally, last fall (2015), I got the 5D mark III and the Tamron lens.

Sold the 70D and the 400mm f/5.6L recently. (I'll replace the 400mm with the 400 f/2.8 IS II or the 600 f/4 IS II someday... someday).

The flash, modifiers, stands, gels, etc. were purchased over a period of 4 years.

That's the long route I mentioned. It was expensive, but you are right there is a process most of us go through. Like you, I regretted my lens choices until I started getting the L glass. I've decided that lens choices are more important than anything else. I'd never dreamed of spending that much in the beginning, but some do.

I'm just a hobbyist. I don't make any money at this and up until January 2015 was a truck driver. If I could walk, I'd be out shooting. 5 more months until then.

I've had fun shooting birds, product photography (just for fun), high school football, portraits, landscapes, architectural, real estate (got a few $ for that), just about anything one can think of. My favorites so far are portraits and landscapes.

So, for $1,200? 

Canon T5i ($649) and the EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM ($199), and the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($349) = $1,197.00 

Yeah, I know there is lens overlap, but everyone needs a little speed now and then. I used to have the 28-135 and was very happy with it as a zoom lens. I would have preferred a 70D with the same lens combo... but the budget was tight.  

I like to open new boxes, but I completely get your point about used.

Of course, $2k (The floor the imaginary OP asks for) opens up a whole different can of beans.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 11, 2016)

I knew a lady that decided to get seriously into photography and spent $20k on Canon gear.
She tried using the gear once, but gave up because it was just too complicated.

For first-timers, I tell them to buy something cheap.
They'll thank you later.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that a new photographer is not thinking $3,000 for equipment, but feels that ~$1000 is pretty high.



Exactly this ! To suggest someone will spend $3-4K on a "trying out" a new hobby is a real stretch... Many of us perhaps started in film, logically grabbed a digital point and shoot years ago and then became increasingly frustrated with the poor output. I migrated to a DSLR in 2008, after three Fuji digital cameras, that had increasingly better performance and features... I bought a 450D with a kit 18-55 IS and the 70-300 USM IS, if I could go back and advise myself, I'd have probably gone for a 18-135mm kit and dropped onto a 300mm f4 IS at a later date, but ya live and learn... 

Anyone starting out today, my first question would be what do you want it for - mostly this will be better holiday photos and snaps of the kids... I'd run through the pros and cons of primes, show some photos, explain the Bokah thing and confirm their budget. Typically, I'd recommend a first kit of a entry level DSLR with a bigger range kit lens, most likely the 18-135mm... That's enough for most people, for most of the situations.

I upgrade my kit 18-55 to a white box 15-85, I started to appreciate the quality of good glass, but I didn't really start to appreciate my kit until I started shooting in raw, almost straight after, I added a 135L, a 50mm f1.4 and a 10-22mm... The 6D blew me out the water, I added the 16-35 f2.8 II, the 24-70 f2.8 II and upgraded my 70-300 to the L version... Looking back, yes, I should have gone for a 5D and a 50mm prime from day one... But that was 3x more than what I actually spent on my first DSLR in 2008


----------



## jd7 (Jul 11, 2016)

For someone starting out and wanting a body plus two lenses ...

Option 1
latest Rebel
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 (or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 )
EF-S 55-250 or 50 1.8 STM depending on whether the person is more interested in longer range or low light/shallow DOF

Option 2
80D and same lenses as for option 1

Option 3
6D
24-70 f4 IS (or perhaps 24-70 f2.8 if can fit in budget, although the versatility of the F4 IS shouldn't be underestimated in my opinion)
70-200 f4 IS (or 70-200 f2.8 IS II if it can fit in the budget and the person is not put off by the size and weight) or 85 1.8 depending on whether the person is more interested in longer range or low light/shallow DOF


----------



## jd7 (Jul 11, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Those people who do not know very well what kind of picture will do, should choose the most versatile body, and they today they are 80D and 5D Mark iii. I think the 6D AF may hinder the development of some types of picture, and sure to be a disappointment in Live View.



Hi ajfotofilmagem
Just wondering why you say the 6D would be a disappointment in Live View? I wasn't aware the 5DIII was better in Live View than the 6D. Have I missed something?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2016)

Bennymiata said:


> I knew a lady that decided to get seriously into photography and spent $20k on Canon gear.
> She tried using the gear once, but gave up because it was just too complicated.
> 
> For first-timers, I tell them to buy something cheap.
> They'll thank you later.



Did you get to buy any of that gear?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> First question: Is this hypothetical "starter" paying of student loans?



   That's a great question. Given the OP's budget I would say comfortably retired, trust fund baby, or he has no kids.

None of the below is directed at you, YuengLinger, or anyone else. Just some of my thoughts.

  You know guys, $2-$5k isn't really that high. Heck, I know factory workers that have side by side ATVs that cost as much as a car ($12k or more). Lots of retirees in my town do also. We have thousands of miles of remote BLM roads to explore in one of the least populated states for its size. It is not uncommon for me to run into groups of local retirees 50 miles out in the remote desert on their ATVs having the time of their lives. What does a Sea-Doo or dirtbike cost? Bass Boat? Simple Jon boat with a little motor and trailer? How many people do we see that went out and bought a Harley during the craze and never put more than 1,000 miles on the thing? Mesquite, Nevada is a desert retirement community. A bunch of these old folks are in awesome shape and extremely active. They also have a lot of money and a lot of time to fill that they don't want to spend in the Casinos around here. There are also awesome National Parks within a days drive from here. 

I name my city and the people in it, but there are communities all over the map that are much like it.

 Just trying to add a little perspective.  

Not everyone is on a strict budget like most of us. A person asking about a camera body and two lenses in that price range probably isn't as uncommon as we think. Some of us might think he is foolish, but that's his problem.

When I lived in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Florida it was not unusual to run into guys I worked with that lived in mobile homes who bought $15,000 bass boats because they said it helped keep the freezer full and they had a lot of kids to feed. Many of them also had thousands of dollars in hunting gear and paid to lease hunting land. Or they had Coon Dogs that cost them thousands too. Wow. But it isn't my place to call a man a fool because of how he decides to spend his money to enjoy the lifestyle he wants to live. That's what he wants and he's got the right as a free man to decide how he wants to spend his money. 

Some people see a home as just a place to lay their head at night (Me). Some see it as an ornate place to live. 

Some like to get a new car every 3-5 years. Others buy 10 year old used cars and drive them until the wheels fall off (That's me ).

When I lived in Orange County, California it wasn't unusual to see people being extravagant at all about the smallest of things. 

It is something he thinks he wants to do and has the money to do it. He may lose interest or regret it later, but that's his concern. We've all done something like that.  Haven't we? I know I have. The point is people all have different priorities. They aren't all like us.

So the question is simple: 1 Body and 2 lenses for a good all around kit. All around, because it can be used for most things and he hasn't specialized yet. He's not asking for lectures about whether or not he's asking a stupid or not. He doesn't want us to save him from himself.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2016)

Has the person got money? If so, 80D, 17-55F2.8, 100-400F5.6 for $5200 here in Canada...

or for $3200, get an 80D, 18-135, and either a sigma or tamron 150-600......

or for $1200, a T61, 18-55, and a 55-250

It is hard to recommend without knowing the budget or the intended use.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think that a new photographer is not thinking $3,000 for equipment, but feels that ~$1000 is pretty high.
> ...



Or...live but don't learn very well...

Bolded above was me – shot film before autofocus was affordable, Tmax and a darkroom, fun times. What I learned from film was lens > body and that aperture matters. When I started researching dSLRs in 2009, I wasn't completely certain photography would become a serious hobby, but I did know I wanted substantially better images than my superzoom P&S was delivering. My primary focus at the time was our first daughter, about 18 months old at that point. I gave myself a budget of $2500, bought a Rebel T1i/500D, skipped the slow kit lens and got a 17-55/2.8 as my standard zoom and the 85/1.8 for portraits. Added a 430EX II because I had also learned light > body, and a Manfrotto CX190PRO4 tripod with 488RC2 ballhead. 




CanonFanBoy said:


> So the question is simple: 1 Body and 2 lenses for a good all around kit. All around, because it can be used for most things and he hasn't specialized yet.



With the budget of $2-5K, I'd say: 5DIII, 24-70 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, 430EX III-RT, and a Manfrotto/Benro/Induro/Feisol CF tripod+ballhead combo. Total would be about $5200, but offset by the $200 rebate for buying the two lenses, assuming they're purchased by 27-Aug.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 11, 2016)

jd7 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Those people who do not know very well what kind of picture will do, should choose the most versatile body, and they today they are 80D and 5D Mark iii. I think the 6D AF may hinder the development of some types of picture, and sure to be a disappointment in Live View.
> ...


I did not express myself well. I did not say Live View on 5D Mark III is better than in 6D ...

I meant 6D will have limited success rates in both focus systems: through the viewfinder and using the LCD. On the other hand, 5D Mark III has very good AF through the viewfinder, and through the LCD will be as bad as 6D.

In this sense, 80D is the most balanced option, offering both very good AF systems. In fact 80D has the best AF in Live View that is currently known.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 11, 2016)

I would like to change my choices of the past, and it would have saved me a lot of money ... :

If I had a time machine, I could change my choices of girlfriends, and would not have any of them, because they did not work.  I would wait for the right woman in my life, no path errors. ???

Do not. 8)
Making mistakes is more fun. ;D


----------



## DomTomLondon (Jul 11, 2016)

I would say Get a 6D body and a EF 35 f2 IS lens to go with it, and start taking photo.

Give yourself a year and then decide what you're missing (wider or longer) in the lens department and what type of photography you like to shoot.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Has the person got money? If so, 80D, 17-55F2.8, 100-400F5.6 for $5200 here in Canada...
> 
> or for $3200, get an 80D, 18-135, and either a sigma or tamron 150-600......
> 
> ...



$2k-$5k all around use because he's not decided to specialize yet.


----------



## j-nord (Jul 11, 2016)

80D seems like the clear winner unless the there is a strong need for FF (astro, UWA, heavy portrait use). I've been toying with the idea of replacing my 6D with an 80D until I can re-assess with the release of the 5Div, 6Dii, 4D(???) and maybe even 7Diii.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 11, 2016)

I would recommend a bit different than others - especially when the person is just starting out.

I would go for a refurb 60D,70D,or new 80D, 10-22, 17-55 or 24-70, and 70-200 f4 IS. Throw in a 60mm macro and you have a fine kit for a starter and one they can grow into and explore most photography genre's. You could even add the 50 1.8 if you wanted a larger aperture than what the 60mm would provide (2.8 ). When they are ready to upgrade, sell the whole thing as a complete kit, or keep the EF lenses. You could add a 1.4 teleconverter too and stay under budget.


----------



## timmy_650 (Jul 12, 2016)

My vote for 6D $1100 (or 5m3 if the 5d4 is out already) 24-105 f4 ($500) and 70-200 f4 ($500) comes in at $2100 ish


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 12, 2016)

In total honesty, I have spent way too much to get to my present camera (DSLR bodies XTi > 50d>5diii) and lens ("kits" 17-85 > 15-85+10-22+70-200 f/4 > 16-35 f/4 + 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 and lots of others) combinations but each step offered me education and experience. The spend over the years was offset by what I learned. When I sold an item to help finance a newer one, I sometimes did not take a hit but even when I did, I can consider that my "tuition." Were I to jump into FF and the kit I have now as my first go at phtography, I might wind up being just like the woman mentioned earlier who spent a lot of money then gave up because it as too complicated.

So, I'd think a truly interested newby with the budget could start with an 80d (or 60d or 70d or 7d) with a 15-85 and a 70-200 (which 70-200 variety depends on budget). This is a great starting off place. But, I'd also have the fictitious OP add in the cost of a decent laptop or desktop computer. Shooting RAW and learning basic PP is (maybe) as important as the equipment used to capture the images (don't flame me, please) because that will add to the learning and growth of that OP as they develop their skill.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 12, 2016)

I'll jump on the 80D bandwagon as well. It's a really solid all-around camera for a reasonable price. Combined with an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or 15-85 for a general purpose zoom and 55-250 for tele you'd have a great starter kit that you can do a lot with. I'd also throw in a faster prime like the 35mm f/2 IS or 50 f/1.8 STM.




Haydn1971 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think that a new photographer is not thinking $3,000 for equipment, but feels that ~$1000 is pretty high.
> ...



For me, the $800+ I spent on my first Rebel (550D in 2011) seemed like a lot. I had the disposable income to spend considerably more if I wished, but wasn't sure at that time photography would be more than a niche hobby. 

So, I think its a matter of perspective and interest level. I'm not that interested in fishing, so the $70 I have invested in cheap, basic equipment is all I'm willing to spend. I spend my hobby money on photo gear and wood working tools.



CanonFanBoy said:


> You know guys, $2-$5k isn't really that high. Heck, I know factory workers that have side by side ATVs that cost as much as a car ($12k or more)...



I agree, a lot of people spend a heck of a lot more on hobbies than $2-5K! Sports cars, motorcycles, boats, guns, hunting and fishing equipment - all of it can get really expensive. Personally, I wouldn't want to drop $2-5k on something unless/until I was pretty sure I really liked the hobby. I would buy starter gear and work up. But, that's me. I'm sure there are people with plenty of money who would certainly be willing to spend that much or even much more on something new.


----------



## DomTomLondon (Jul 12, 2016)

I would say forget about all these zoom lenses for now, especially if you can't afford the good fast L zooms. Stick to a good prime or two and learn to use them wisely. They are usually cheap, small and will make you work (and learn) more for your photos.

The only time I use a zoom is for weddings, when I don't have time to keep changing lenses and need to get the shot.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 12, 2016)

Lots of good input and feedback already.

I think that there are simply too many variables (age, disposable income, disposition towards technology, degree of interest in the hobby, just to name probably the biggies) to land on a one-size-fits-all starter kit, or even a range of two or three.

I used to work with one of those guys who jumped headlong into any new hobby or sport by buying a full complement of all the latest, greatest, high-end gear. His buddies made out like bandits on mint used gear, each time his initial fervor faded.

My first dSLR purchase (10D + 24-85) was in 2003, after a couple of Kodak P&S purchases (1997, 2000) followed a ~20-year hiatus from the hobby. I made the move to dSLRs because the 10D kit fit _my_ personal value proposition, and the P&S no longer satisfied. The 24-85 was no great shakes in retrospect, but that original kit was still far better than the DC4800 it replaced.

Now I have a 5DIII (while still holding onto my 5D and 20D), a complement of primes and top-of-the line L zooms (with the exception of my 24-105) and 4 600's. I've spent a tidy sum over the years upgrading gear, but on balance, it's been an enjoyable learning experience and a very rewarding hobby!


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 13, 2016)

DomTomLondon said:


> I would say forget about all these zoom lenses for now, especially if you can't afford the good fast L zooms. Stick to a good prime or two and learn to use them wisely. They are usually cheap, small and will make you work (and learn) more for your photos.
> 
> The only time I use a zoom is for weddings, when I don't have time to keep changing lenses and need to get the shot.



If you do weddings I am not worthy of speaking to you. That has got to be the most stressful thing in the world. I'd rather chew my unwashed toes off.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If you do weddings I am not worthy of speaking to you. That has got to be the most stressful thing in the world. I'd rather chew my unwashed toes off.



Hear, hear! (Except for the unwashed toes part ...)


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 14, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > If you do weddings I am not worthy of speaking to you. That has got to be the most stressful thing in the world. I'd rather chew my unwashed toes off.
> ...



I'd wash them for you, Jon. ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 15, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...
> What would you recommend?
> ...


Hi CanonFanBoy! 

Quite difficult little task you give us here. Why? 
Because reality looks different 

I think there are a lot of good answers to your definition of task, so I don't need to add another.
But I did give a lot advice to friends of mine asking me for good camera equipment. 
That's what I was asking them? (in addition I did some explanation, if they weren't familiar with photography)


What's your budget? Answers: mostly far below 1000$/€
What do you want to take pictures of? Answers, differing a lot: children, friends, animals, nature, vacation, etc.
What are your preferences for equipment? Answers, differing a lot: high IQ, weight, size, versatility
Do you think of exchangeable lenses and would you really use it? Answers: mostly no
Do you prefer low light capability or wide zoom range? Answers: both *lol*

So for those, who still were interested in an ILC system the budget was still far away what you give us here. 
And I ended up in suggesting them a good Rebel/xxxD body with the STM double zoom kit and a explicit recommendation to take a closer look at the 50/1.8 STM and the pancake lenses, because of their IQ and low light capabilities. Of course other systems were also taken into account. But only those that had something similar to the EF 50/1.8 STM. That is a real stunner when it comes to beginners and low budget.

Another story fitting quite well here, showing you need to know, what the beginner wants:
When I asked a friend of mine if she was still dedicated to photography after she bought a double zoom kit in parallel to the birth of her first child, she said "No! Because the pictures don't pop!" 
I took a shot from the hip of her toddler with my portrait prime - small DOF - and asked: "Like that?" 
Answer: "Yes! That's it."
Now she's heading for a 50/1.8 for her APS-C (because the 1.4 is too much for the budget).
And she has to pay a lot more because she decided for Nikon before she asked me  So no EF 50/1.8 STM


----------

