Can I sell my DSLR and swap to Mirrorless?

[Andysnap]

@kenm

Nikon D7100 with Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 ...... 1310g
Fuji XE-2 with Fuji 18-55mm .... 660g

I know which I want to lug up a mountain.

I can definitely put up with a camera and one lens if the IQ is a match for my Nikon, which its looking as if it might be.
With a rucksack I could even pop in the Rollecord with me butties.
Agree about the Sony, still quite heavy and not a lot smaller, and very expensive.

 

[kenm]

Looks like your sold on a Fuji then. Dare I mention that there is a Sony A7 on a certain on-line retailer's warehouse section at under £1k?

 

[Andysnap]

Off to check that out.

 

[arad85]

No doubt I will back on here in a week having bought an A7r and a load of lenses.

"Mirrorless" isn't the way to go for less weight. Smaller sensor is the way to go.

All you are losing with the Sony is the mirror and the "box" it goes in. The lenses still have to cover the same sensor size as FF, and Canon/Nikon don't add volume and weight just for the sake of it. IMHO, the only way to get less bulk with decent lenses is micro 4/3rds. Whether you're happy with the compromises that forces on you (which are small, but still there) is a decision that's only yours to make.

 

[kenm]

Off to check that out.

Another way of looking at this - you say Mrs Snap can trot up the mountain faster than you, so give her the D7100 to carry, which will slow her down and speed you up. Marital bliss and save you a fortune all at the same time, fixed it for ye.

 

[Andysnap]

Mrs Snap says "marital bliss..." And gave a look like this apparently if you ever meet there will be a meeting of eye and sharp stick.

 

[danolive1]

@kenm

Nikon D7100 with Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 ...... 1310g
Fuji XE-2 with Fuji 18-55mm .... 660g

I know which I want to lug up a mountain.

I can definitely put up with a camera and one lens if the IQ is a match for my Nikon, which its looking as if it might be.
With a rucksack I could even pop in the Rollecord with me butties.
Agree about the Sony, still quite heavy and not a lot smaller, and very expensive.

Not a massive difference, just have a big poo before setting off to lose the weight instead.

 

[big soft moose]

simply attach a number of helium balloons to your gear ... what could go wrong

 

[kenm]

Mrs Snap says "marital bliss..." And gave a look like this apparently if you ever meet there will be a meeting of eye and sharp stick.

Yikes, don't point me out in Waitrose then.

 

[big soft moose]

course obvious answer to the original question is , of course you can , its a free country - if you wish you can trade it all in for a point and shoot - only you can gauge whether this would be sensible

 

[pingu666]

"Mirrorless" isn't the way to go for less weight. Smaller sensor is the way to go.

All you are losing with the Sony is the mirror and the "box" it goes in. The lenses still have to cover the same sensor size as FF, and Canon/Nikon don't add volume and weight just for the sake of it. IMHO, the only way to get less bulk with decent lenses is micro 4/3rds. Whether you're happy with the compromises that forces on you (which are small, but still there) is a decision that's only yours to make.

funnily enough leica lenses are really small, and massively good

 

[Andysnap]

course obvious answer to the original question is , of course you can , its a free country - if you wish you can trade it all in for a point and shoot - only you can gauge whether this would be sensible

Correct, but I need affirmation from my peers before making any decisions, I'm not capable of deciding for myself.

I did a little experiment yesterday with a D7100 and lens and an old film camera with lens which is roughly the size and weight as an XE-2, lugged both of them about for a bit and it felt so much easier with the smaller camera. I can imagine it would make quite a big difference to my old bones after a long walk in big hills.

I'm pretty much decided to do it now, just need to decide which Fuji and how to pay for it. I may be able to do it and keep the Nikon and lenses for wildlife if I'm patient and wait for my bonus in March. Mmm patience, tricky one that.

Andy

 

[woof woof]

"Mirrorless" isn't the way to go for less weight. Smaller sensor is the way to go.

All you are losing with the Sony is the mirror and the "box" it goes in. The lenses still have to cover the same sensor size as FF, and Canon/Nikon don't add volume and weight just for the sake of it. IMHO, the only way to get less bulk with decent lenses is micro 4/3rds. Whether you're happy with the compromises that forces on you (which are small, but still there) is a decision that's only yours to make.

Can't say I agree 100% with that

I have an A7 and it's the size of my Panasonic G1 and weighs not a lot more, not enough to make a real world difference to me anyway. The Sony lenses need to be bigger than MFT lenses (although I believe that in theory A7 lenses can be a bit smaller than conventional DSLR lenses due to the shorter registration distance? but I don't know if this is carried forward into reality) but IMVHO the A7+lens combo still represents saving in both bulk and very probably in weight too over a conventional 35mm DSLR+lens of similar quality.

For my use just about any modern camera is good enough and although I own and use two MFT cameras I also have an A7 for two reasons - to use 35mm lenses at their 35mm format field of view on and to have available a really good camera for when I want a really good camera and I think that the A7 is just that and offers arguably just about the best potential image quality available for handheld (35mm-ish and smaller) shooting.

I use manual lenses on my A7 and I can carry my A7 with 50mm f1.4 in a small bag together with a 28mm f2.8 and a 85mm f2. The same Canon 5D combo would require a much larger bag. Granted, in my case lots of the bulk and weight saving is down to the manual lenses but once Sony bring out an 85mm I'm pretty sure that an A7 + 50mm f1.8, 35mm f2.8 and 85mm will still offer a bulk and weight saving over a 5D+ three quality lenses.

 

[woof woof]

Double post.

 

[MarkLG]

I looked at the Fuji XT1 and the sony A7 recently, but decided to stick with m4/3 and went for the E-M1. There's no real difference between the bulk of the bodies between the 3 systems, the real savings are in the lenses.
The 18-55 fuji kit lens is a nice size, but I would have wanted to get the f2.8 weatherproof zoom when it's released, which looks huge. The 24-70 f4 on the sony is also a pretty hefty lump of glass.
If your main aim is to get a smaller setup then have a look at the lenses you plan to use as well as the bodies, or you may find the savings aren't as great as you might have thought.
For me the m4/3 strikes the right balance - a small, light kit with enough image quality to produce lovely 16x12" prints. It's definitely worth taking a look at the Panasonic GX7 or Oly E-M5, along with a used Panasonic 12-35.

 

[pjm1]

Andy, just to butt in here with something leftfield... what sort of hillwalking do you do? Day trips outside of winter, snow-free overnight (tent carried) or full winter, multi-day camps?

The reason for asking (because I am also into my hillwalking) is that obviously the pack sizes are vastly different for each of these. I have my summer day pack down to about 4kg including food and water, rising to 8-9kg for an overnight (plus port ), all the way up to 15+kg for a full winter trip (inc crampons, axe etc. but no climbing gear)

Now, trimming 500g off a 4kg pack is not easy - basically involves leaving either layers or food behind (not good!)... but, trimming 500g off a 9kg pack isn't so hard - yes, it might be expensive (ultralight tents can be up to £400) but I reckon I could spend £500 on my overnight gear and bring it down by 1500g or so. Winter packs are a bit more variable according to the type of terrain you're doing, so hard to comment.

So, that's option 1 (non-camera-related) to saving your weight.

Option 2 looks further south. What boots are you wearing? Do you need (and what sort of) crampon compatibility? If you're into full winter climbing then you don't have as many options here, but if it's genuinely just for walking with occasional C1 use, you could easily save 100-125g on boots (and plenty more if you really go for it) by choosing slightly lighter weight footwear options. I didn't and love my trusty Scarpa SL Activs (B1 boots) because of the lack of goretex and overall solidity, but if i wanted easier walking, I would opt for less leather, more synthetics and a far lighter (but still B1 or even B2) boot. Remember that every kg saved on the feet equates to about 4-5kg saving in "pack terms"...

Just a few thoughts, without you having to compromise your camera kit

 

[Andysnap]

Thanks for your insights Paul, makes interesting reading. Generally we only walk in Spring/Summer/Autumn and its always day walks so my pack is already fairly small, just w/proofs and rations. We don't do anything extreme as we (well more me really) aren't as young or fit as once we were so anything with too much scrambling/mountaineerring is out.
I currently wear Brasher Hillwalker boots, not the lightest but I need good ankle support, I do have some lighter approach boots for easier days on the flat. So basically the place to save weight is in the camera kit. Also its not just the weight but the bulk, the D7100 needs to go in a rucksack when we are on the steeper bits and then I have to constantly take the pack off, take the pic, put the camera away, put the pack on again...pain in the harris. Whereas with eg the XE-1 and 18mm lens I can keep it in a my bumbag and still have room for the proofs and food, much easier to get at.

Andy

 

[pjm1]

That makes sense, Andy. If the pack is small then the opportunities to save weight are obviously more limited! Likewise, you're wearing reasonably lightweight boots (coincidentally the same weight as my next planned pair of winter boots - about half a kilo lighter than my "summer" boots! ).

One other thing you could look at is your camera attachment. I find having my camera attached to the front of my body shoulder straps) works well and even when I have the crampons on and axe in hand, it doesn't impede. Whilst I don't have one of these, I would certainly consider them: Cotton Carrier "Strapshot" and/or the Think Tank Photos Support system. The latter looks well balanced but probably needs some sort of retractable tether to work well.

Unless you carry weight in front of your shoulders, your pack is obviously all pulling you back and down... so I find carrying something like a camera mounted from the shoulder straps helps distribute the overall pack weight far better. YMMV though...

 

[Jao]

Hi Andy, late to the discussion but I thought I would throw in my 2p worth. DSLRs are great but as you say can be heavy. I long since ditched my Canon DSLRs and Lenses, they were superb but with a 95% return to film they were doing nothing. I do still shoot a small amount of digital, indoor work where low noise high ISO is required. I settled on a Fuji X-Pro 1 and three primes. I have been hugely satisfied with it. I love the IQ, the lenses are excellent in my opinion but most of all for an old film shooter like me the Fuji handles intuitively in that that is it feels like a film camera and I can move seamlessly from my Voigtlander to the Fuji and back. I have a hillwalking trip planned in November and the kit will be the Bessa L with 15mm Heliar, the Xpro-1 and 35mm and 60mm lenses and my Rolliecord V. I have used this combination on several Snowdonian excursions and it is easy to carry up them hills!

 

[arad85]

Can't say I agree 100% with that

Depends which way you look at it.

Panny 12-35 f2.8 : 300g (stabilised)
Sony 24-70 f4: 430g (no stabilisation)
Sony 24-70 f2.8: 955g (no stabilisation)
Canon 24-70 f4: 600g (stabilised)
Canon 24-70 f2.8: 805g (no stabilisation)

70-200 equivalent (all stabilised)
Panny 35-100 f2.8: 330g
Sony 70-200 f4: 840g
Sony 70-200 f2.8: 1.34kg
Canon 70-200 f4: 760g
Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1.49kg

Yup, the Sony lenses are lighter than the Canons, but if you want to carry a couple of decent zooms, the differential soon adds.

The main thing you are losing out is shallow DoF on the micro 4/3rds, but if what you are after is shutter speed, that's not quite so important.

If all you are doing is using adapted lenses on both systems, the gains are probably lower since the adapted lenses are likely to be designed for FF (and far more likely to be constructed sturdily!).

 

[woof woof]

Depends which way you look at it.

Yup. FF 5D+50mm f1.4, FF A7+manual 50mm f1.4, MFT G1+manual 25mm f0.95.

The main thing you are losing out is shallow DoF on the micro 4/3rds, but if what you are after is shutter speed, that's not quite so important.

As I know that you're a MFT user you may agree with me that this is a much repeated argument against the smaller systems is actually an advantage as most of the time with a 35mm/DSLR I actually find myself wanting more DoF not less. This is particularly apparent to me when shooting people indoors as with FF and a 50mm f1.4 if you're shooting at normal camera to subject distances at f1.4 very little is going to be in the DoF and even at f4 you'll probably have one eye in and one out which is great if that's the look you want but if you want both eyes in the DoF you're going to have to stop down further and... once you've stopped down to even f2.8 MFT can match FF for shallow DoF so it's not exactly going to struggle at the sort of apertures needed to get someones eyes sharp and as an added advantage MFT can do that a lower ISO/higher shutter speed.

Generally I think that the DoF argument has been done to death and that the oft referenced MFT (and APS-C) disadvantage is very largely irrelevant to many people.

 

[Andysnap]

I'm actually really surprised at how big the G1 is compared to the A7.

The DoF question is not really relevant to me as I will be mainly shooting landscapes so I want big DoF but I tend to agree with you Alan, after a certain aperture it really won't matter that much.

Andy

 

[simonblue]

I did because i had to,just couldn't carry the weight around anymore simple as that for me,do i miss something my DSLR gave me "yes",but at least i can still get out with my cameras now,which is the biggest plus

 

[woof woof]

I'm actually really surprised at how big the G1 is compared to the A7.

The DoF question is not really relevant to me as I will be mainly shooting landscapes so I want big DoF but I tend to agree with you Alan, after a certain aperture it really won't matter that much.

Andy

The A7 is a few mm wider and higher than the G1 and the G1 has greater depth. Weight wise, as I said, in real world usage with a prime I don't think any difference is significant. In defence of the G1 - the first time I took mine out I honestly had to keep checking the bag to make sure that it was still in there such is the weight saving over a 5D+50mm f1.4.

IMVHO any of the usual CSC suspects when fitted with a prime offer a significant bulk and weight saving over a conventional DSLR + prime set up of similar quality.

A7+manual 50mm f1.4 and G1+AF 25mm f1.8.

 

[pingu666]

leica lenses are fairly small, i guess vs the old m42 era lenses they arent that much smaller, but vs modern stuff they are, i think you can make more compact lenses with a shorter flange distance, specialy for film as the exit pupil angle matters alot less

 

[woof woof]

leica lenses are fairly small, i guess vs the old m42 era lenses they arent that much smaller, but vs modern stuff they are, i think you can make more compact lenses with a shorter flange distance, specialy for film as the exit pupil angle matters alot less

I think that at least some of the size and weight difference between old and new lenses is to do with optical quality. These days we're possibly obsessed with pixel peeping and imagining that every picture we take must look great when printed 6 feet wide and viewed from 4 inches away and getting that quality without resorting to either in camera or post capture corrections means lots of heavy and probably wide diameter glass.

The old Sigma 50mm f1.4 pictured on my 5D and the newer Art are good examples of this when compared to a Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko or Canon FD 50mm f1.4 as the levels of vignetting alone would have those legacy lenses branded as unusable these days and if we look at wider lenses such as 24 or even 28 or 35mm legacy lenses the level of fringing they display would equally have them branded as useless.

I think that we'll see increasing in camera and post capture corrections, even Leica is now doing it and that will very possibly help to limit the bulk and weigh of modern AF lenses.

 

[pingu666]

i think the wider lenses did need help, atleast the lower end ones, 50mm lenses and above should be decent, zooms might have more issues. the older lenses probably have less destortion too

 

[arad85]

Yup. FF 5D+50mm f1.4, FF A7+manual 50mm f1.4, MFT G1+manual 25mm f0.95.

Ahahah.. Choose the largest 25mm you can find for the micro 4/3rds why don't you. Your other image:

illustrates my point. Both 1.x aperture, both 50mm equivalent. The full frame lens is significantly larger (albeit due to the adapter).... I'd wager it's heavier too...

As I said, the place you get less bulk is in the lenses, not bodies

 

[arad85]

double post!

 

[woof woof]

Ahahah.. Choose the largest 25mm you can find for the micro 4/3rds why don't you. Your other image:

illustrates my point. Both 1.x aperture, both 50mm equivalent. The full frame lens is significantly larger (albeit due to the adapter).... I'd wager it's heavier too...

As I said, the place you get less bulk is in the lenses, not bodies

What you say is only partially true and I make no apologies for photographing what I myself own.

My point was and is that even an A7 series body when fitted with a compact(ish) lens still represents a bulk and weight saving over a conventional DSLR and similar quality lens and isn't all that far off a MFT set up.

The bulk and weight difference between my G1 and A7 both with nice lenses fitted isn't IMVHO significant and I'd expect the same to be true of an A7 fitted with either the 35 or 50mm AF prime lenses so far launched. However, I'd say that the bulk and weight difference between either of my two compact systems and my now sold 5D+ a nice lens is significant.

I'd accept your argument if I thought that the bulk and weight difference between MFT and A7 was significant but honestly I don't think that it is with the lenses I use. If you were to compare an A7 with some big fat bulky lens to a MFT body with a significantly smaller lens then your argument stands up, but not with the lenses I own and use and I suspect not with the current Sony FE 35mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8. I wonder what my A7 would look like next to your GH4?

http://camerasize.com/compact/#525.411,487.395,ha,f

A7 + 55mm f1.8 AF lens = 755g.
GH4+25mm f1.8 (same as my lens) = 697g.
So the A7 set up is 58g heavier than the GH4 set up. I wouldn't say that was significant.

A 5D weighs 892g and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 weighs 505g making a total of 1397g.
I'd say that that was a significant difference to either smaller system.

Anyway, I've made my point and the views are there for anyone interested.

 

[srichards]

Or spend a few hundred on the rx100 mk3 for landscapes and keep the Nikon for wildlife?

 

[arad85]

The bulk and weight difference between my G1 and A7 both with fairly short focal length prime nice lenses fitted isn't IMVHO significant

I'd agree with that

I'd accept your argument if I thought that the bulk and weight difference between MFT and A7 was significant

It isn't. The bodies are near enough identical. It's the lenses - but you don't do anything beyond 100mm and you are on primes. I wouldn't expect there to be a difference TBH.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#525.411,487.395,ha,f

IT's THE LENSES where micro 4/3rds wins. There is nothing in it on bodies. I carry 1 body, 3 ZOOM lenses.... it's the longer lenses where you win out. Even wide angles on FF are relatively small and light. Have a look at the zoom lens comparison (and this is Sony F4 vs Panny F2.8 so not even same aperture).

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.392,381.366,381.336,487.393,ha,t

 

[Strapps]

@Andysnap I know you're a big fan of your Bessa so if you're coming down to the Arundel meet in October I'd be happy to take along my X-Pro1 for you to play with.

 

[Andysnap]

Thanks Dean but I think I'm going to have to miss the meet. we are going to Lille the following weekend and times is 'ard guvnor so one of them has to go.

 

[kenm]

Fuji X-T1 is what I am mulling over at the minute. The Sony is an upgrade (to FF which I probably don't need) but the Fuji is sideways in terms of IQ (assuming the Fuji lenses are as good as the Nikons) while saving weight and size and I rather like the look of the top plate with speed ISO, comp, shutter speed, and aperture on the lens. I could pay for it by selling the RX100II, the D7000, the 16-85, the 55-200, the Sigma 15-50 and Sigma 10-20. I sometimes shoot motorsport, but could retain my D70, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and Nikon 300 f4.

A year ago 90 per cent of photos were taken on a D7000 with a 17-50 zoom, six months ago 90 per cent were taken with the RX100 II

Is it time to Add to Basket?

 

[Andysnap]

I think I'm decided on the X-T1 as well Ken. I may however keep the DSLR kit and try and be patient and save up...difficult but I should have enough in March to get the camera and kit lens.

But I have very little patience and if I sell the 300mm f4 I'm half way there and could realistically get it by Xmas.....

But then I would need something zoomy to replace the 300mm......

Aaargh, where's that lottery win when you need it?

 

[Swanseajack]

I think I'm decided on the X-T1 as well Ken. I may however keep the DSLR kit and try and be patient and save up...difficult but I should have enough in March to get the camera and kit lens.

But I have very little patience and if I sell the 300mm f4 I'm half way there and could realistically get it by Xmas.....

But then I would need something zoomy to replace the 300mm......

Aaargh, where's that lottery win when you need it?

For the zoomy you will need to go manual lens if you want 300mm. I have had the Vivitar (Tokina made) 100-300 f5 and currently have Tokina ATX 100-300mm f4 and Tamron 80-210mm f3.8 plus X2 Teleconverter and all these lenses cost less than a night out. All these lens have performed excellently on the XT1, with the Tokina ATX being pick of the bunch.

It will be your only option until the Fuji supertele is released at the end of next year, unless you can keep your 300mm and use adapter from Nikon to Fuji.

 

[Barryboy]

Have you given any thought to the Nikon V1 ? I have the V1 with 10-30mm kit lens plus the 18.5mm f1.8 which is a very sharp lens and gives super results. The conversion factor of 2.7 means approx 27-80mm for the zoom and 50mm for the prime lens. It reallly is a cracking camera which I tend to use more and more often. My next purchase will be the 30-110mm (80-30mm equivalent) lens as I find the 30mm end of the smaller lens too short for street photography/candids.

There are limitations, of course, but you will find that with every mirrorless camera no matter who makes it. My biggest bugbear is that you cannot set the ISO rating to a definite number... you can only choose to limit the top end number within pre-set ranges, and another issue I have is that it is easy to move the mode dial accidentally. However it is easy to get used to these little foibles and these days I find myself using the D90 less and less.

Rob

 

[Andysnap]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your thoughts on this and yes I did look at the V series but tbh I didn't like the style and much prefer the look of the Fuji.
Shallow I know....but thats how it is.

Andy

 

[Swanseajack]

From my experience and after owning three V1's previously, although a great little camera it can't be compared to the XT1 in IQ terms. The V1 is a great second or third camera, but not a main camera when compared with the latest technology the Fuji, Sony etc.... offer. Not sure how the V3 stacks up though, although I dont like the look of it.