the compact DSLR for any pocket

totleytom wrote:

Without denigrating it in any way, it's not a sports camera. I use mine as a light-weight travel outfit. I think the 18-55 STM lens is better than it has any right to be, but it's not amazing (for stills). I took some shots across Rome from the Gianicola in spring and at first sight they look really good, but when I pixel peep I can see that the fine detail on the distant buildings has blurred. Other lenses, e.g. my 35mm f2 (non-IS) or the 15-85, resolve rather more detail. For other subjects - mid-distance subjects, for instance - the 18-55 does well. Using the 15-85 rather denies the point of using it as a light-weight travel camera.

I'm looking forward to the new 24mm EF-S becoming available as I think that lens will match the 100D perfectly.

I really don't pixel peep on anything! I'm in for fun and laughter, I'm quite happy with the 18 55, for the modest price I think its hard to top? I'm more interested in the colors and just the overall photo, not the detail or minuscule writing on a building that might be a quarter mile away.

I'll contend the SL1 for its size and IQ,  its cost its hard to beat with any camera, yes a 5D3, and a 24 70 2.8 yup wow is its combo, but  put up against the SL1 and 18 55, and the SL1's cost?? the 5D3 is in my light way overpriced.

But I don't go looking into every corner of a photo looking for its shortcomings I look at the photo to remind me of a fun and relaxing time.

"dog house riley"