New DSLR or midsize?

[stalkin4elk]

A while back I sold a Canon DSLR body but kept a couple of lenses, including the premier 70-200 IS L series. I debate getting one of the newer midsize cameras(advanced P and S) for the portability and almost SLR capabilities(...ok not really)vs. a new Canon DSLR to use my lenses. How about your opinions from some of you who have used both.
Thanks.

[Lechwe]

I actually have and use both types. I try to have them with me all the time as I find different situations where each is better suited for the shot. If I could only have one it would be the DLSR especially since you already have some good glass for it. That's the most expensive part of the package.

Good luck.

[LB_hntr]

the sensor size in the point and shoot cameras really limit the iso range you can use in them. blame this on the media and marketing drive to jam as many pixels in the smallest sensor size.
  but with more pixels in a give sensor size the lower the usable iso range becomes (generally speaking and most definitely in the p/s cameras). so while I love and shoot a few canon p/s cameras they can not and will never compare to the capabilities of a dslr.
  My suggestion is to sell the "L" glass and use the money to buy both a decent dslr like a rebel or a 60d (major sale prices right now as the 70d is out) with a decent lens but not "l" quality and also a good p/s camera like a canon sx160 (also on sale right now for 99 bucks and imo one of the most functional p/s cameras out there with full manual control and video.
Just selling the 70-200 is l lens will get you enough money to do everything above and still have money in you pocket!

Why do I say you don't need the "L" lens and buy a cheaper one. Unless you are shooting low light often, or as hard on gear as a pro is you don't need the "l" and stopped down a good lens will be so similar to a "L" lens pic quality wise you wont tell the difference.
  As a pro is shoot only "L" glass including the same 70-200 IS L 2.8. Its one of my favorite lenses along with the 28-70 2.8 "L" and a 16-35 2.8 "L". But when Im not shooting a gig and just shooting for myself under less stressful conditions and not pushing the limits of my gear I use sigma, canon (non L) and tamron lenses for the lighter weight. I can say the pic quality under non-pro conditions are not that different and its so much easier to pack, and use non-pro lenses in the woods.
  Just my thoughts and what I would personally do if I was not a pro photog and was in your situation. That one lens is worth enough money to get you everything you want and still give you very high quality pictures and the extra bonus of a light weight p/s camera you can always have with you.

[stalkin4elk]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I will have to research the new options. The L series really is fantastic for indoor sports/events and low light wildlife situations. I had a couple of old advanced p/s that were expensive p.o.s. compared to the new technology. I was hoping to reduce weight and bulk and have respectable performance to use in backcountry situations. Just may need both.

[stalkin4elk]

Might add I never regretted the L series lense a second. A pro friend of mine has been to Africa something like 28 times and killed a few Sigmas in his early days but has never had a problem with several L lenses.

[LB_hntr]

Originally posted by stalkin4elk:
Might add I never regretted the L series lense a second. A pro friend of mine has been to Africa something like 28 times and killed a few Sigmas in his early days but has never had a problem with several L lenses.

no doubt about it the "L" glass is superb quality and tough as nails. My 70-200 IS 2.8 L has been dropped a dozen times on cement and tile church floors and is just as good as the day I bought it.
But I can count on 1 finger how many times I packed that big heavy lens into the field. my canon 70-200 f4 L lens weighs almost 2 pounds less and cost 700 vs the 2500 for the 2.8 IS L.
That is what I mean when I say you can get the best of both worlds. if you sell the 2.8 IS L lens you would make enough money to completely set yourself up with new gear and also a good p/s.
Lots of options out there. Lots of ways you can go with this. I have been a pro photog for 17 years and have used just about every piece of camera gear made. So in your searches and figuring it all out, if you have any questions or need advise i have probably used it, owned, it and can answer any questions on it. You are in a great position. you already have a major jump start on most people getting into photography so you cant go wrong any route you go.

[Steelman]

For A mid size to small camera check out the Olympus Stylus. its a small bridge camera with a 28-300mm lens with F2.8 through out its range. f2.8 at 300mm would be awesome for hunting.  Of course it want compare to Canon L glass. But it Canon L glass is 3K.