canon 17-40L on canon sl2 or on sony A6300 with metabones adapter

MikeJ9116 wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

kayaker156 wrote:

the dpreview of the sl2 describes it as an entry level camera for the casual photographer. I consider myself a serious amateur, not a pro.

"Entry level" cameras are fabulous, and I haven't heard anything bad about the SL2. More $$ gets you mostly bigger size and weight, and more sophisticated focusing.

....and features, controls, performance , options. You get what you pay for!

The SL2 is the best value camera in Canon's APS-C line... including the EOS M cameras. Once AF (MFA with the 80D), shot buffer and size (some consider this a liability) is considered, what compelling reason is there to buy anything other than the SL2? Are these "improvements" worth paying twice the price of the 80D? You infer the SL2 is a cheap, low feature camera when it is far from this.

For that you can try the T7i, 77D, or 80D. Many more $$$$ gets you a bigger sensor. You could help us if you tell us what "advanced" features you think you need.

Not only is the Sl2 a good value camera, it is also quite small. I wasn't expecting much from the camera. I got it as a relatively inexpensive camera to use in my kayak and on pontoon and other small boats. I really don't want a lot of fancy features, just a simple camera that is capable of producing sharp photographs in not very good conditions.  It has worked well for that (the Sl1 I had also worked very well for that purpose).  I have full frame cameras for other kinds of photography I do, but I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to recommend the Sl2 as a good basic camera, especially with the 18-135 lens, although I mostly use it with the 70-300 II USM Nano.  It is a great light combination (as is the camera with the 17-40 lens).