[Guest]

For the lens: if you take macro shots the canon 100mm 2.8 for 500 Euros/dollars is great. for an additional 200 Euro you can get it with IS. Nikon has a 105mm macro lens with IS. These lenses make good outdoor portrait lenses, too, but they are a little long, especially indoors. I suggest you get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 in addition for indoor portraits. If you dont need macro just get one lens: Canon/Nikon 85mm 1.8



Well, full frame or not is a highly subjective decision. Basically full frame has three advantages:

1. more background blur with shorter focal length: If you like photos with shallow depth of field, this is awesome (The main reason I went fullframe)

2. large aperture wide angle primes. There are no wide angle lenses brighter than f/2.8 for aps-c but lots for fullframe

3. Much Larger (but not brighter) viewfinder (Great!)

4. Better noise performance. Somewhat overrated, I believe. Generally, you get about 1 stop in practice compared to aps-c. Not enough for me to warrant the cost of full frame (the gain is greater with Nikon d3s)



cons against fullframe:

1. expensive

2. lenses, especially walk around zooms are more expensive, larger and heavier than the equivalent lenses for aps-c. If you dont need the most shallow depth of field and the slight advantage in noise performacne, Aps-c is more convenient then full frame

3. if you photograph wildlife you have to carry extremly large and expensive telephoto lenses while with aps-c you may get away with a 100-400 zoom.