If you were to start fresh

[wxjef]

Just sitting here thinking and wondering if I did a clean slate or just starting again, how would my kit look, what would I go for? Just go straight for premium lenses instead of getting more consumer grade stuff? Would I opt for the brand I'm using now? Would I opt for primes or do a zoom quartet?

I'm thinking about this, actually have been for a while every sense I started dipping my toes into mirrorless seeing as the mount (still pretty backwards compatible, perhaps a little slow), if I'm looking at newer glass to replace my older stuff in a new mount that wouldn't work with my older gear, should I constrain myself with the current brand of gear I already use or just let curiosity about another system guide me, after all, the older stuff still works.

This is just a thought exercise.

What would you do if you was clean slating your kit? Switch brands? Supplement your kit with a different brand? Stick with what you got?

 

[West Coast Birder]

I get the urge every so often to get the holy trinity of primes, every time I see the prime portrait threads! But I really don’t take people photos often enough to go through with it. Most of the time, I’m shooting birds. But if I had to start over, I might consider supplementing my lens arsenal with some primes. Maybe not have the 24-70 as I don’t use it often enough, and I think that if I had a 35mm prime, I could do without the 36-70 range. I would keep my 70-200 though, as it is my favorite lens.

 

[Ltdave]

while i still primarily shoot football in the dark, and hockey in almost the dark, id want some high-speed cameras but money would have to be no object because i LOVE Canon (started shooting with an EX-auto in 1976 and have owned nothing but ever since. except the few 'collection' cameras i have. even told the Photo Lab NCOIC he could keep that Nikon kit he tried to assign to me) so im thinking the R3 for sports. or 2 because i use 2 bodies for football but since i really REALLY want to shoot more fashion/beauty/lifestyle/headshots stuff, im think the R5 would be a nice little camera. damned shame the lenses are like putting a coffee can on a chalk board eraser.

id probably keep the zooms i have but definitely would add an 85mm f1.4L to the kit

 

[West Coast Birder]

Want to add that I have no desire to change systems. I know my Canons, I’m used to Canons, and I’m very comfortable with them. If I had to start over, I’ll probably start with an R5 and an R7 and build around it. I must says I’ve been curious about Leicas for a long time but that’s more of a fantasy rather than a real need.

 

[DanielScott]

I'm very happy with my current kit, but if I could add and replace some things I would add a Canon EF 135mm f/2 and a Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 to my kit, replace my recently stolen Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, upgrade my 5D MKIII to a 5D MKIV, and upgrade my flash heads from Neewer to Profoto. I would also get some quality c-stands and a 12ft x 12ft scrim.

 

[gjl711]

A total clean slate, as in my equipment was all stolen and the insurance guy just gave me a big check? Or... If I were to do it all again, go back 20 years and start the kit over. The answers would be different for me.
Starting over today: Canon R5 prime, R6II backup, RF14-35 F4 L, RF24-105 F4 L, RF100 F2.8 L MACRO, RF100-500 F4.5-7.1 L
I think that this would be my core. I't more or less what I have now but in the R line. I would fill in with some non L for lightness.

If going back to the future, it would be more or less that same as I have.

 

[paddler4]

I never think about it. I try to discipline myself not to think about new equipment unless something new would allow me to do something specific better than I can do it now. Since, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, in my case, the weakest piece of photographic equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder, I don't replace gear very often. To be frank, however, I did buy a few bodies that I had a hard time justifying.

One factor that might push me to think about a clean slate is age. It's getting a lot harder to lug the collection of FF equipment I often carry on my back. I did give serious thought to swapping out my FF Canon gear for the new OM-1, but I decided against it because 12-bit MFT was a step too far, and the cost of replacing everything was very high. I thought about switching back to APS-C for the same reason, but Canon's APS-C lens line-up is very weak, and while one can use EF and RF lenses, that does away with most of the weight savings. Fuji would be appealing if it weren't for the problems with Adobe raw rendering.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I pretty much just did that. I replaced all my EF gear with RF stuff.

A few years ago I went through a used gear buying/selling spree. I tried pretty much every lens that would fit a Canon body that I could find for less than $700. I went through about 30 lenses in all. In the end, I settled on a standard zoom kit; 16-35L, 24-105L, 70-300L, 400L prime. All in what I call the "f/4 L-class." Second-tier L lenses.

I still had other EF lenses that I didn't use too much and I sold all but 2 when I went mirrorless. New stuff includes an R5, R7, 24-105/4, 70-200/4, 100-500, 50/1.8. I miss that 70-300, but the 70-200 on the R7 puts me in about the same place. The old 400/5.6 was a great bird lens, but was getting long in the tooth. The 100-500 is in all ways better, but is significantly bigger than the 400 prime. I kept the EF ultrawide and an EFS 15-85 that I use with adapters.

So no, I didn't go crazy and switch things up. I just consolidated with gear I knew I'd use on a daily basis. I'd still like a 2nd FF body, but I think I'll wait for an R5ii. I might get one of those, or maybe another R5 when used prices drop as people upgrade to the new model. My whole life I've shot with one-generation-old gear. Mirrorless kinda messed that up.

 

[paddler4]

All in what I call the "f/4 L-class." Second-tier L lenses.

Well, this is a digression, but I don't think f/4 L lenses are necessarily second-tier. Some are fabulous, like the EF 70-200 f/4 II. They are just a different choice. f/4 lenses are a great deal lighter and considerably smaller, so they are preferable for some purposes. Years ago, I bought the previous 70-200 f/4 because I preferred it. yes, it was half the price of the f/2.8, but as important for me, it weighs half as much and is much smaller, so it was a lot better for hauling around. I never needed the slightly narrower DOF, and a one-stop difference in ISO on the rare occasions I needed it was not a big deal.

 

[Scott M]

I sort of did this when I transitioned from dSLRs to mirrorless. While I had no desire to switch away from Canon, as I am so familiar with their systems, I did use the opportunity to evaluate my entire kit as I transitioned to the RF system. Over the past three years, I have sold all my old equipment and now have just a single EF mount lens -- a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro, just because I don't shoot enough macro to justify upgrading to the Canon RF 100mm. Anyway, I ended up downsizing a lot of my kit, going from bigger, heavier and more expensive L lenses to smaller, lighter weight and less expensive non-L's. I had five EF mount L's, but now have just a single RF mount L. I have also gone from three bodies (5D3, 7D2 and M50) to two (R6II and R10). It makes traveling with my equipment much easier as I get older, and I do not feel like I've given up much functionality for what I shoot.

 

[Daffodil Hunter]

I wouldn't change a thing. Every equipment I bought, used, and sold taught me something about photography and myself. It's the experience that is the journey and not the final set of equipment.

 

[bobpal]

I have been Fuji curious for a number of years. I don't go there because I shoot a lot of sports and I'm not sure Fuji would do as well as my Canon gear does. I would like the smaller kit though. I have an old X-E2 rangefinder style body that I like using but the continuous focus isn't as good as I'd like it to be.

 

[StephenM]

Like some others, I'd answer differently depending on whether I was just starting out out with photography, or replacing all my equipment due to fire, theft or flood. I'm also going to be the odd one out, as being primarily a film user, and having been keen on photography since the 1950's, when, let's face, no cameras that are new today were on sale!

Starting out from scratch and knowing nothing, I'd be coming here (or another site) and asking for advice - there are very few dealers around with comprehensive stocks to make an informed choice by walking in.

Starting out with a clean slate and having my current knowledge and photographic inclinations, there are many cameras I have that I wouldn't seek to rebuy, and many that I couldn't now buy new anyway! The first big difference would be no 35mm cameras. The format just doesn't give the print quality I want. So my line up would be

Bronica ETRS with 75mm lens (I have one, small and light)
Mamiya RZ67 with 110mm lens (I have one, convenient one lever action to wind on, cock shutter and drop mirror)
Mamiya RB67 with 110mm lens (again have one, the advantage is no need for a battery and can leave mirror up waiting for the light, whereas the RZ67 has a time out to save the battery).

All the above with the standard lens only, as they would be there for the small size and light weight.
Plus I'd replace my Ensign Selfix 6x9 folder as a slip in the pocket camera.

In large format, I'd stick with what I currently have: in 5x4 a Walker Titan (dishwasher safe), Canham DLC, and an Intrepid black model (very light); in 5x7 I wouldn't seek to replace my Gandolfi Variant but rely just on my Canham MQC (no longer made); and in 10x8 stick with my Canham wooden camera and an Intrepid for the light weight. Lenses for large format are more interesting. I would be very tempted to get a Cooke triple convertible and not replace some of my lenses, but would certainly replace a number with the same thing for size, weight and coverage reasons).

I suppose that really amounts to saying I'd stay with what I have. Until I find a spare £4,700 to spend on an order for the Cooke lens...

As the digital camera I use is my wife's cast off, I'd have to see what became available, as I doubt I would buy one.

 

[cdifoto]

ISO is so clean these days I'd skip all the primes (except macro) and obese f/2.8 zooms and go straight for the f/4 IS normal zooms and better super telephotos of who cares what aperture as long as it's below f/8 and sharp enough wide open.

This from the perspective of being mind blown over what the 1DX II and 16-35mm f/4 IS can do.

 

[Skygod44]

Well, I was pretty-much 'forced' into making this choice, getting on for a decade ago, due to imminent carpal tunnel issues.

I had to make a tough decision:
Quit photography completely
Or,
Look into lighter gear

My father had recently died, and he'd always been an Olympus user - which I'd never even considered.
But in memory of him, I checked it out.

And, at the same time, I was fed up with some POTNers who were droning on about their expensive gear while being unable to take a photo which was any more demanding than you could achieve with a disposable camera...
...so I thought I'd try videography as a new challenge, and take a break from stills, and POTN.

And, most cinema cameras have small sensors. So "full frame" or APS-C wasn't an issue, either.

I then learned that shooting at 24p or 30p or even 60p, and using the one-eighty rule meant that shutter speeds of only 1/120s would get great results: so an f4L 600mm prime would be pointless...

This new knowledge added up to me selling ALL my Canon gear, and moving into micro 4/3.

If I could start over, I'm sorry to say I would have skipped Canon, and gone from my Nikon film cameras straight to m43.

The benefits far "outweigh" (pun intended) the drawbacks.
And now, with denoise software being what it is...?
Nope.
No more huge camera bags for me, thanks.

 

[cdifoto]

Well, I was pretty-much 'forced' into making this choice, getting on for a decade ago, due to imminent carpal tunnel issues.

I had to make a tough decision:
Quit photography completely
Or,
Look into lighter gear

My father had recently died, and he'd always been an Olympus user - which I'd never even considered.
But in memory of him, I checked it out.

And, at the same time, I was fed up with some POTNers who were droning on about their expensive gear while being unable to take a photo which was any more demanding than you could achieve with a disposable camera...
...so I thought I'd try videography as a new challenge, and take a break from stills, and POTN.

And, most cinema cameras have small sensors. So "full frame" or APS-C wasn't an issue, either.

I then learned that shooting at 24p or 30p or even 60p, and using the one-eighty rule meant that shutter speeds of only 1/120s would get great results: so an f4L 600mm prime would be pointless...

This new knowledge added up to me selling ALL my Canon gear, and moving into micro 4/3.

If I could start over, I'm sorry to say I would have skipped Canon, and gone from my Nikon film cameras straight to m43.

The benefits far "outweigh" (pun intended) the drawbacks.
And now, with denoise software being what it is...?
Nope.
No more huge camera bags for me, thanks.

My stupid butt dove back in with my existing kit thinking I'd be cool with what I had. Then the 1DX II went on sale for 3 grand so I was like cool...4k video...with the lenses I already have.

Well then the aperture cable broke on my 24-70 so it could only be used wide open. Then I got a 16-35 for the IS because of video. Then the 24-105 II for the IS because of video. Then a 70-200 IS. Then a gimbal only to find out IS turned off works better. Lmao.

Then I discover the mirror less system and other brands, and therefore I go super defensive about the EF because blahhhhh I spent dumb money.

 

[Skygod44]

My stupid butt dove back in with my existing kit thinking I'd be cool with what I had. Then the 1DX II went on sale for 3 grand so I was like cool...4k video...with the lenses I already have.

Well then the aperture cable broke on my 24-70 so it could only be used wide open. Then I got a 16-35 for the IS because of video. Then the 24-105 II for the IS because of video. Then a 70-200 IS. Then a gimbal only to find out IS turned off works better. Lmao.

Then I discover the mirror less system and other brands, and therefore I go super defensive about the EF because blahhhhh I spent dumb money.

Don't be hard on yourself...
These manufacturers don't employ advertising companies - who in turn, contract behavioural/work psychologists - just to spread the wealth!

As we've said a million times over, back on POTN, it's only when you compare photos side-by-side that you can see the differences between all the formats/manufacturers for the majority of "ordinary" photos.

I also used to defend Canon v Nikon, because I'd used both systems...
...but in truth, as has already been said, it's the 12" behind the viewfinder that ruins/makes a photo.

And now, it's time to go into the city with my daughter, and buy the "bits" needed to make today's Christmas cake.

 

[ShipleyNW]

Well, this is a digression, but I don't think f/4 L lenses are necessarily second-tier. Some are fabulous, like the EF 70-200 f/4 II. They are just a different choice. f/4 lenses are a great deal lighter and considerably smaller, so they are preferable for some purposes. Years ago, I bought the previous 70-200 f/4 because I preferred it. yes, it was half the price of the f/2.8, but as important for me, it weighs half as much and is much smaller, so it was a lot better for hauling around. I never needed the slightly narrower DOF, and a one-stop difference in ISO on the rare occasions I needed it was not a big deal.

Second tier isn't a dig at all. Canon's fastest lenses are generally the sharpest and best built, but also the biggest and most expensive in their class. The next step down, still L, where I've always lived, is a stop or so slower, maybe doesn't score quite as well in sharpness tests, but are still very sharp, smaller, easier to use, and run about half the price. From a value perspective, I'm not sure you can do better.

 

[West Coast Birder]

The 70-200 F/4 is a very different beast from its big brother. It always accompanies me when I go on hikes. You can still get decent separation from the background at F4 if you want to use it for some quick portraits of your hiking companions and it is light as a feather.

 

[cdifoto]

Second tier isn't a dig at all. Canon's fastest lenses are generally the sharpest and best built, but also the biggest and most expensive in their class. The next step down, still L, where I've always lived, is a stop or so slower, maybe doesn't score quite as well in sharpness tests, but are still very sharp, smaller, easier to use, and run about half the price. From a value perspective, I'm not sure you can do better.

Lol this sounds so insulting but it's 100% factual.