Best lightweight system?

psybear

psybear

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,895
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
After a bad accident a few years ago, plus the years marching on, I think it might be time to show some sympathy to my back by lightening the load in my camera bag.

Currently I'm using a Nikon Z8 as my main camera, plus a Z7 as backup. Normal lens carry is the 24-120, 14-30, 20mm, plus either Tamron 70-300 (for travel) or 100-400. On top of this is my Mavic 3 Pro plus batteries. It all makes for a heavy bag and this was brought home to me after a four-hour hike in the hills yesterday - the bag wasn't too bad at the time but I'm crippled with lower back pain today.

So I'm giving serious consideration to switching to a lighter set-up. I used to have a Fuji set-up - XT3 plus various lenses - so switching back to them wouldn't be massive learning curve. What other systems/set-ups should I be considering?

I shoot mainly landscape - but also macro and occasional wildlife.

Any informed recommendations would be appreciated, particularly from anyone who has done something similar.

Not so concerned re the drone as I don't always carry it, but an Air3s would be the obvious way to go there anyway.
 
IF I'm carrying "the full kit", it's 3 Fuji bodies with 3 zooms - 10-24, 18-135 and 100-400 (usually with a 1.4x teleconverter) which covers most eventualities, I could take just the one body with the 3 zooms but that would introduce more opportunities for dust invasions and slow down changes. It used to be a similar range with Nikon but just the one body at a time with lens changes as necessary.
These days, I've dropped a little IQ but increased flexibility with a Sony RX-10 bridge camera. No lens changes, one body/lens combination so much reduced bulk and weight. In real life, the IQ drop isn't that noticeable, especially to non photographers and even more so when reduced to screen friendly sizes.
 
I stopped trying to cover every base a long time ago, these days I usually take 1 camera, 1 lens, yes I might miss shots but not having the full 14-400 focal length available but it makes me work with what I've got and I usually find shots that I might not have considered. On rare occassions, I might take an additional lens (or even a second body with that second lens). Makes for a much lighter bag and in my opinion a much more enjoyable day.
 
Last edited:
From what I'm seeing lately the OM Systems OM1 mk2 is generating a lot of buzz. For stuff like macro work and photo stacking it sounds very good. Something to think about, maybe.
 
I like my G9, with three lenses you can cover 28-800 FFeq, but I rarely carry all, usually the 14-140 (28 to 280) a25mm prime and a 20mm prime (50&40)
 
my goal for quite a while has been to get lighter kit. I went Sony mirrorless hoping that would help but I found the camera bodies were too small for me and lenses roughly the same size as DSLR lenses. Ended up coming back to Nikon for the Z8. I tried to only buy lighter lens options. I don’t take a full kit out with me any more (unless I go to a place like Skomer). My landscape kit consists of 14-35 and 24-200. Quite often I take only one of them attached to the camera. The other stays in the car boot. For Wildlife I mainly take only the 400 f4.5 and 1.4TC.

I’ve found the 24-200 to be good as it covers quite a lot of ground in only one lens.

I’m much happier carrying less and lighter kit too. I don’t have to worry about if I’ve got the right lens on and if I need to change it as I’ve often only got one lens with me!
 
Last edited:
Plain Nev said:
From what I'm seeing lately the OM Systems OM1 mk2 is generating a lot of buzz. For stuff like macro work and photo stacking it sounds very good. Something to think about, maybe.
Click to expand...
Aye there's a guy in my camera club gets amazing results from his Olympus. Not sure what model it is but it looks tiny to me. Must get a chat with him.
 
If you can get by with the smaller sensor I guess an Olympus is the obvious suggestion - I've never used one but they seem to get recommended quite often in this type of situation.

Fuji or Sony APS-c would be next and probably give similar results to each other so I guess it's a case of seeing what lenses are available etc My boy has an older A6000 which is okay, but the newer models are said to have pretty good AF etc on them. My only Fuji camera is the X100f so you will have more opinion there than I will :)

My go-to sunrise kit if I'm here in Bristol etc is the A7Riii & either the 35GM or the Voigtlander 40/1.2E - If I'm out for more of a landscape/nature/countryside/woodland type of day then it's the 40/1.2 & Tamron 70-180/2.8 - I'd probably swap the 40 for the 35GM if I think I might need AF. If I'm on a street, beach day, dog walk etc then it's just the X100f.

I tend to just go for basic kit & don't worry about the shots I might "miss" :)
 
I wanted a light weight kit and decided that there wasn't much point getting a heavy lightweight kit so I went for an Olympus EM5. The one drawback is that it is a bit small for my hands so I find I have to concentrate when pushing buttons other than the shutter button but it does produce good results. In fact a while ago I gave my EM5 ii to my daughter thinking I would just use my Sony but I missed it so much that I just had to buy a EM5 iii ;)
 
When I want to carry a minimum kit I have a Sony A65 with a 16~300mm Tamron or a Nikon D600 with a 28~300mm Tamron. If I want to go really light, I use a Panasonic FZ82.

I don't bother about "image quality" too much - I'd rather get a "bad" picture than no picture.
 
I'm a Fuji fan, and originally swapped to the system in 2018, as I wanted a lighter kit, coming from Canon full frame. However, with wildlife and macro being your target genres, I would for for an OM system camera, as they seem particularly good for those niches. Then either stick with what you have, but with fewer lenses for landscape.
 
i usually like to travel light, small sling bag 1 body and 2 lenses,but occasionally it can bite you in the bum, i was on the beach at caldy yesterday, long exposure of some wooden structures sticking out the sand, high tide corresponding with sunset, in my mind i had high expectations, il usually take my 70-200 and a shorter lens, nowadays its the 24-70, but as i was on a beach i didnt like the idea of swapping lenses so just took the 24-70, looking at google earth the posts are close to the high tide mark, so didnt think id need the longer lens, sods law yesterday even at 70mm i had the tripod in the water, wouldnt bother me for a normal shot but for long exposure even gentle lapping of the waves gives you issues, it was only a half hour drive there so in the big picture i spent an couple of hours on the beach soaking up the suns rays on a glorious winters afternoon, but id came to take pictures and i should have brought my big bag and took a couple of bodies , never mind every days a school day and it did give me an idea for an invention to get round the aformentioned waves hitting tripod legs
 
A potentially interesting option not mentioned (if you want to keep a range of focal lengths) is the Nikon 28-400. Keep the kit you have and just take that if you’re keeping the weight down.
 
Gold said:
A potentially interesting option not mentioned (if you want to keep a range of focal lengths) is the Nikon 28-400. Keep the kit you have and just take that if you’re keeping the weight down.
Click to expand...
Funny before this idea of changing to a lighter system I had been looking at this lens, particularly for travel.
 
I prefer the G9ii in place of the G9 (I have both) as it has a better larger menu setup. Size wise they are more like a FF camera
Most of the time the 12-60mm Leica Elmarit lens lens (24-120mm FF) is my main lens, and the 100-300mm lens (200 - 600mm FF) does the rest. Main reason is less weight, glad I left Nikon DSLR camers after a tough decision
 
Last edited:
psybear said:
Funny before this idea of changing to a lighter system I had been looking at this lens, particularly for travel.
Click to expand...
I would also suggest what @Gold suggested about the Nikon 28-400.

I went Olympus for a couple of years, in anticipation of getting older and had a few years of some sort of Fuji/M43/Nikon DSLR combination. But now I am nearly all Nikon mirrorless: Z8 and Zf (except for a Fuji X100s, which I hope to replace with an X100VI).

Depending on the choice of lenses, you don't necessarily gain very much by going Olympus or Fuji in terms of reduced weight and size. Bearing in mind you can have lenses about two stops slower with FF compared to M43 and still have the equivalent capability.

The 2nd generation Nikons (Z8,Z9, Z6III, ZF, and Z50II) are excellent cameras and if you assume the Z7 III will be in a Z6III body, and that, "the larger than Z50", Z50II body is larger to allow a Z70 with IBIS (a complete guess on my part), you can make some estimates about comparative weights and sizes going forward.

When I was deciding, what to do, I was surprised at how little benefit, in terms and size, "for my use", I was getting from going Olympus. Of course "overall" there are benefits of size and weight of being in the Olympus system. And there are other attractive reasons to go OMSystems, Lumix M43 or Fuji, but after spending months (years) of comparing the systems and collating lots of information on weights and sizes I decided to stick with Nikon, rather than expanding my Olympus or Fuji systems.

From memory, some of the key comparisons were the Nikon 400mm f4.5 +TC compared to to OM 300mm f4, where the Nikon choice was lighter than the OM option and the Nikon 24-200mm vs the OM 12-100mm, where both were almost the same weight..

For many people M43 will still be the obvious lightweight./ small option, and there are some nice features with M43 cameras, but I feel it's worthwhile making some detailed weight/size comparisons before making the decision.
 
Nikon Zfc or Z50 body and carry fewer lenses. The few Nikon DX prime lenses are quite goo and cheap, as are a couple of the zooms. And of course you can still use your existing lenses.
 
myotis said:
I would also suggest what @Gold suggested about the Nikon 28-400.

I went Olympus for a couple of years, in anticipation of getting older and had a few years of some sort of Fuji/M43/Nikon DSLR combination. But now I am nearly all Nikon mirrorless: Z8 and Zf (except for a Fuji X100s, which I hope to replace with an X100VI).

Depending on the choice of lenses, you don't necessarily gain very much by going Olympus or Fuji in terms of reduced weight and size. Bearing in mind you can have lenses about two stops slower with FF compared to M43 and still have the equivalent capability.

The 2nd generation Nikons (Z8,Z9, Z6III, ZF, and Z50II) are excellent cameras and if you assume the Z7 III will be in a Z6III body, and that, "the larger than Z50", Z50II body is larger to allow a Z70 with IBIS (a complete guess on my part), you can make some estimates about comparative weights and sizes going forward.

When I was deciding, what to do, I was surprised at how little benefit, in terms and size, "for my use", I was getting from going Olympus. Of course "overall" there are benefits of size and weight of being in the Olympus system. And there are other attractive reasons to go OMSystems, Lumix M43 or Fuji, but after spending months (years) of comparing the systems and collating lots of information on weights and sizes I decided to stick with Nikon, rather than expanding my Olympus or Fuji systems.

From memory, some of the key comparisons were the Nikon 400mm f4.5 +TC compared to to OM 300mm f4, where the Nikon choice was lighter than the OM option and the Nikon 24-200mm vs the OM 12-100mm, where both were almost the same weight..

For many people M43 will still be the obvious lightweight./ small option, and there are some nice features with M43 cameras, but I feel it's worthwhile making some detailed weight/size comparisons before making the decision.
Click to expand...

Some very interesting food for thought there, cheers
 
Slightly different angle, but what about putting some of the heavier items in a bum back so it's taking weight on your hips, or a rucksack with proper hip straps?
 
I reached the same point 2 years ago. After research, it appeared that cutting weight was essential. I accepted that it might mean a little lower IQ but a check with DXo Mark and found that the Sony A660 was not much lower than my Canon 5D4 but with a long zoom lens is about 1/3 weight. I have been very pleased with the results but have kept my Canon kit which I use occasionally for studio work. I have a Sony 18-135mm and 70-350mm; I also have a fixed 35mm f1.8 but have not yet used it. I also bought a Sigma Canon to Sony adaptor mainly so I could use my excellent Canon Macro lens on the Sony but have not done so yet. When going on a photoshoot, I only take what I will definitely need to minimise weight. This has been a great improvement and without the change, I may have had to give up photography. I would not undertake long hikes now anyway so try to drive to all photogenic locations. Recently, more health issues coupled with aging has restricted me so I plan more carefully. I recently pulled out of a planned Club visit to photograph London at night; one member reported that it included 19,895 steps and 28 flights of stairs and a total of 15,78 Km. Just as well I pulled out. Changing to a new camera system does take some adjustment but was worth it. I took the Canon to a studio session last week and realised just how strange it seemed and how much I had forgotten. Best wishes with your search.

Dave
 
psybear said:
Some very interesting food for thought there, cheers
Click to expand...
There is also a possibility of also just thinking a bit differenly.

Although, I used a zoom on the olympus (or the 17mm f1.8) I prefer primes, and at the moment my walkabout is the Zf with the 40mm f2 weighing 880g. An OM1 with the 12-40mm f2,8 is 881g. Although the zoom is useful I still prefer fixed focal lengths... most of the time..

I also use the 26mm f2.8 on the Z8 (which is 1035g) but you could put this lens on the Z7 (making a total weight of 792g). I have the record button set to switch crop from DF to DX and switching crop means I can jump between a 26mm angle of view to a 39mm angle of view without changing lenses. The 20mp DX crop is fine for anything I am likely to use this approach for. Even using the Zf with only 10mp when cropped would be "OK" for most things.

A Z7 (maybe replaced with a Z7III one day) with a say a 40mm, plus the 28-400 would make a pretty small, lightweight and versatile kit for when weight and size was an issue.
 
I've only ever used Fuji digitally & wouldn't change currently, but if starting from scratch today I would seriously consider the Olympus OM3 + whatever lenses suited
 
myotis said:
There is also a possibility of also just thinking a bit differenly.

Although, I used a zoom on the olympus (or the 17mm f1.8) I prefer primes, and at the moment my walkabout is the Zf with the 40mm f2 weighing 880g. An OM1 with the 12-40mm f2,8 is 881g. Although the zoom is useful I still prefer fixed focal lengths... most of the time..
Click to expand...

A better comparison would be an OM1 with a 20mm F1.4 Pro which adds up to 846g
 
trevjm said:
A better comparison would be an OM1 with a 20mm F1.4 Pro which adds up to 846g
Click to expand...
Yes, that is certainly an alternative comparison, especially if you are into primes. Had I stuck with OM it was a lens on my wish list.
 
psybear said:
After a bad accident a few years ago, plus the years marching on, I think it might be time to show some sympathy to my back by lightening the load in my camera bag.

Currently I'm using a Nikon Z8 as my main camera, plus a Z7 as backup. Normal lens carry is the 24-120, 14-30, 20mm, plus either Tamron 70-300 (for travel) or 100-400. On top of this is my Mavic 3 Pro plus batteries. It all makes for a heavy bag and this was brought home to me after a four-hour hike in the hills yesterday - the bag wasn't too bad at the time but I'm crippled with lower back pain today.

So I'm giving serious consideration to switching to a lighter set-up. I used to have a Fuji set-up - XT3 plus various lenses - so switching back to them wouldn't be massive learning curve. What other systems/set-ups should I be considering?

I shoot mainly landscape - but also macro and occasional wildlife.

Any informed recommendations would be appreciated, particularly from anyone who has done something similar.

Not so concerned re the drone as I don't always carry it, but an Air3s would be the obvious way to go there anyway.
Click to expand...
I used Olympus for a long time as a lighter package when also shooting FF DSLR, however a few years back I stopped using Olympus when I moved to Sony FF mirrorless as the weight advantage for the lenses I used was pretty insignificant.

For general shooting though I only take one lens, so a city break lens would be something like the 20-70mm, and when combined with the Sony A1 isn’t too much heavier than the EM1-II and 12-40mm I had. I can also use the 10-20mm APS-C lens (15-30mm EQ) if I want uber lightweight and this still gives me over 20 megapixels.

When I do motorsports I have two cameras, a 70-200mm f2.8 and 100-400mm, plus at least one short prime and the backpack does become very tiresome and not great for my fibro, however last year I bought a wheeled bag similar to a small cabin case and that helps a lot. It’s not perfect though as the grounds around racetracks are far from smooth.
 
Dave Canon said:
Sony A660 was not much lower than my Canon 5D4 but with a long zoom lens is about 1/3 weight. I........... I have a Sony 18-135mm and 70-350mm; I also have a fixed 35mm f1.8 but have not yet used it.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my kit now: A6600, 18-135, 70-350 and a tiny Rokinon 12mm.

Does pretty much everything most of us want - in one shoulder bag that doesn't weigh me down. And actually - you can fit the 12mm in one waxed jacket pocket, and the 18-135 in the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top