Cutting Down On Weight Of Equipment

Ed Sutton said:
...It's why 99% of people are happy with phone cameras, even poor quality ones.
Click to expand...
Yes.

There was a radio programme some years ago. I forget the exact subject but I think it might have been an episode of "More or Less". Anyway, one comment has stuck in my mind: "experts are the last people who can judge what the public want, that's why surveys were invented".
 
On hols I use a Canon M50 and my wife uses a NikonZ50. Still get some great images from these two lightweights and way easier to cart around than the gear we had before.
 
snerkler said:
This it true, however I think you missed my point. My point was that if subject matter is the same then the one with better image quality will get more likes than the one with poor image quality. So whilst subject matter will win over IQ, it is wrong to say that IQ is not important.
Click to expand...
I agree that of two otherwise identical photos the one with better IQ will be preferred. I do still think that for most people IQ isn't the priority is for photography enthusiasts, and the 'good enough' hurdle is much lower for non-photographers. I also think that the stress placed on IQ to new photographers can hold them back from making good pictures at best, and lead them to pursue it as the sole goal at worse.
 
To Joe and Joanne Public, the one with the brightest colours will probably be the preferred shot, especially if viewed on a phone screen.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I agree that of two otherwise identical photos the one with better IQ will be preferred. I do still think that for most people IQ isn't the priority is for photography enthusiasts, and the 'good enough' hurdle is much lower for non-photographers. I also think that the stress placed on IQ to new photographers can hold them back from making good pictures at best, and lead them to pursue it as the sole goal at worse.
Click to expand...
Yep completely agree. I think the more you get into it the more you notice the difference though. For example, my bar for what is acceptable it much higher now than it was when I started out, and when I look back shot that I thought were sharp and detailed aren't as good as I thought. Now some, may be a lot of this will be because we now have lenses that can resolve more detail, but some of it is just that we can see it more as our eyes have 'trained' to see it. Another example is looking back at some of my older shots I'm gobsmacked by how bad the purple fringing is on the chrome of cars etc, yet back then I never even saw/noticed it.
 
Nod said:
To Joe and Joanne Public, the one with the brightest colours will probably be the preferred shot, especially if viewed on a phone screen.
Click to expand...

Worth remembering that the target audience may prefer an over-developed, super punchy image because it leaps off the (Facebook) page, but the same image in a collection may look cheap and tawdry.

Sorry OP, we've got away from your topic now. ;)
 
If you take a look into the Olympus thread on here. ( this section ) you will find lots of photos taken with them , my own wildlife shots included using my OM1 + 300 F4 + 1.4tc which gives a effective reach of 840mm in FF terms , it is also 7 stops image stabilised , fully waterproof and weighs in at 2 kg all up . .when out and about I have no bags ,no covers on lens,no tripod or monopod to carry … any wide angle lenses are small enough and light enough to fit in a coat pocket .. and with the latest OMS bodies high I.s.o shooting is not a problem with shots taken at 10,000 iso and above workable
 
the black fox said:
high I.s.o shooting is not a problem with shots taken at 10,000 iso and above workable
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a big point with modern cameras, I now set the limit on my G9 at 12800, as if it needs to go that high to get a shot, it will still be a shot worth having.
Until I actually tried it and did a lot of tests, I used to set it to 3200!!! What a waste :)
 
It's an interesting thread as someone said earlier the average person wouldn't know a great photograph if they saw it printed .
Photography is all about enjoying taking photos. It doesn't make any difference what you use - Phone , pocket camera, M43 or 'full frame '
If you enjoy like I do it's all about the process really not the equipment.
But lighter equipment as we age is definitely useful.
 
the black fox said:
and with the latest OMS bodies high I.s.o shooting is not a problem with shots taken at 10,000 iso and above workable
Click to expand...
That of course is subjective. Obviously it's better to have a noisy shot than no shot at all, and modern day noise software can work wonders (y)
MK1 Photography said:
Photography is all about enjoying taking photos.
Click to expand...
Very true
It doesn't make any difference what you use - Phone , pocket camera, M43 or 'full frame '
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. As you say photogrpahy is about enjoying taking photos, I don't enjoy taking photos with a phone or a pocket camera. Sure I use my phone now and again but I wouldn't say I like the process (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
snerkler said:
As you say photogrpahy is about enjoying taking photos,
Click to expand...
Photography, is a process for recording images. I've not come across "photogrpahy", though. ;)
 
Thank you so much everyone, fornall of your in-depth replies.
It's actually been quite overwhelming with this amount of information to read and digest.

That said, I am very likely to gey an Olympus OM1 mkII, and a few lenses.

One lens I am not sure on, is the macro one.

What's folks opinions on to 60mm vs the 90mm.

I appreciate that these will give me 120mm vs 180mm but is the 120mm enough, is the 180mm too much?

For those that pair an OM1 mkII with either of these (or indeed anyone really), can I have your thoughts please
 
I’ve used the 60mm macro but not the 90mm , both are cabable of in camera focus stacking but I believe the 90mm does it better being a much newer model , it has some fantastic reviews to , u.tube is your friend on this or you can do a camera and lens match on somewhere like juza .com..
I virtually given up on macro due to age related mobility issues . You could also ask on . e.group.uk which is a purely Olympus based forum
 
Last edited:
IanD said:
What's folks opinions on to 60mm vs the 90mm.
Click to expand...


Sounds like both are competent - what's the difference in size and (given the thread title!) weight?

In general, the longer the focal length, the greater the working distance, so for insects the longer lens MIGHT be a better bet. I use a 105mm Micro Nikkor on my FF body which would be 52.5mm on the Olympus so either of your options should do the job.
 
Nod said:
Sounds like both are competent - what's the difference in size and (given the thread title!) weight?

In general, the longer the focal length, the greater the working distance, so for insects the longer lens MIGHT be a better bet. I use a 105mm Micro Nikkor on my FF body which would be 52.5mm on the Olympus so either of your options should do the job.
Click to expand...
Cheers Nod,
Ironically the 90mm is about 1.5 times the weight of the 60mm, but I think I'd have to trade that off with the 2:1 macro ratio, but still weighs less that my Canon RF 100mm Macro, so going in the right direction
 
Ed Sutton said:
The trick is to stop worrying about the photos you can't take, and most of all stop aiming for the very best image quality. Most people don't know great IQ when they see it anyway, because most people look at the pictures as a whole.
Click to expand...
Most people nowadays look at pictures with a web browser, you don't get high quality doing that. Unless you have a 8k screen or you print large.
 
IanD said:
Thank you so much everyone, fornall of your in-depth replies.
It's actually been quite overwhelming with this amount of information to read and digest.

That said, I am very likely to gey an Olympus OM1 mkII, and a few lenses.

One lens I am not sure on, is the macro one.

What's folks opinions on to 60mm vs the 90mm.

I appreciate that these will give me 120mm vs 180mm but is the 120mm enough, is the 180mm too much?

For those that pair an OM1 mkII with either of these (or indeed anyone really), can I have your thoughts please
Click to expand...
For me the 90mm is the better option, 2x magnification, focus clutch, and greater working distance (comparing 1:1)
 
IanD said:
Morning all,
I'm am seriously thinking about selling all my Canon camera gear, and replacing, to cut down on the amount of weight that I'm carry when out for a day's photography.

I know I can be a bit more selective on what I take depending on what genre of photography I am looking at on any day, but even then, as I get older, it's a struggle.

I have been looking at Micro Four Thirds but not fully convinced on a camera that has 20mp. I know they have better processors and have come a very long way, but I still need convincing.

So, I have a Canon R5, and 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100, 100-500, all RF lens, lighter than EF, but even taking a few can make it hard work.

Are there any full frame set ups with Canon image quality, that weigh a lot less and maybe have not so bulky lenses?

I appreciate this will end up turning into quite a debate, but I appreciate everyone's advice here.

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

I don't think you are going to notice much weight difference with another full frame set up for the swap cost.

I have an APSC X100f alongside my very old A7 & my A7Riii - And yes, if you look close enough there is an obvious difference in IQ.

In your position, as a mainly non zoom shooter, I would go 24-70mm & 100-500mm and bin off the rest ;) Anything wider than 24mm I would panorama (my widest is the 24GM anyway) and anything between 70-100mm I would 70mm & crop which isn't an issue with 45mp.

Anything out side of what I can capture, I don't capture* & walk away from without a second thought :)

*for reference, I shoot FF 35GM, 40/1.2, 24GM, 85/1.8 & 70-180/2.8 - I usually only carry 2 lenses at the most.
 
IanD said:
Thank you so much everyone, fornall of your in-depth replies.
It's actually been quite overwhelming with this amount of information to read and digest.

That said, I am very likely to gey an Olympus OM1 mkII, and a few lenses.

One lens I am not sure on, is the macro one.

What's folks opinions on to 60mm vs the 90mm.

I appreciate that these will give me 120mm vs 180mm but is the 120mm enough, is the 180mm too much?

For those that pair an OM1 mkII with either of these (or indeed anyone really), can I have your thoughts please
Click to expand...
Advert warning
Nice OM 1 ii in classifieds and some lenses
 
A friend of mine just bought himself a Sony 200-600 lens, certainly looks the business, makes my LUMIX 100-400mm Leica look rather juvenile, but I've got 1/3rd again his reach, and not much difference in speed. I can't see any specs for the Sony's stabilisation nut I wonder who will have the easiest time shooting hand held for a couple of hours?
We intend to sit and compare on the same subjects.
I'm very interested to compare image quality as well as weight.
 
Sangoma said:
A friend of mine just bought himself a Sony 200-600 lens, certainly looks the business, makes my LUMIX 100-400mm Leica look rather juvenile, but I've got 1/3rd again his reach, and not much difference in speed. I can't see any specs for the Sony's stabilisation nut I wonder who will have the easiest time shooting hand held for a couple of hours?
We intend to sit and compare on the same subjects.
I'm very interested to compare image quality as well as weight.
Click to expand...
The Sony 200-600 is not a lens to use without some support - personally I use it on a monopod, and have the ball head friction control adjusted so I can relatively easily change the angle of the lens, but there is sufficient resistance that little effort is required to keep it steady once I have acquired a subject.
With this setup I have no issues using it for an extended period - you can't make large adjustments to shooting position / angle as quickly as you could hand-held (EG if something appears behind you), but it's still flexible enough for most situations.
 
I’ve got a duff back, knees that don’t bend, and a general deterioration due to age. I used to carry a couple of bodies (now I can hardly manage my own), a selection of lenses, flash, etc. Those were the days. I went with micro four-thirds. I started with a Panasonic GH2, then G7 – donated to a son – and now have a G9. I can take two out of: my favourite prime, a 25mm (50mm equiv), my 14-140 zoom (28 – 280) and my 100-300, all evenly evenly distributed around my body and I can last all day. (Those were the days.)

When videoing with my gimbal, I take my 12-60mm, which is enough for everything but wildlife. The lenses are a lot lighter with MFT. I have a portable LED panel which I can clip onto the gimbal, together with a shotgun mike. I once met a chap in a National Trust garden in a wheelchair that was almost a recording studio, so can’t feel sorry for myself.
 
Writewheel said:
I’ve got a duff back, knees that don’t bend, and a general deterioration due to age. I used to carry a couple of bodies (now I can hardly manage my own), a selection of lenses, flash, etc. Those were the days. I went with micro four-thirds. I started with a Panasonic GH2, then G7 – donated to a son – and now have a G9. I can take two out of: my favourite prime, a 25mm (50mm equiv), my 14-140 zoom (28 – 280) and my 100-300, all evenly evenly distributed around my body and I can last all day. (Those were the days.)

When videoing with my gimbal, I take my 12-60mm, which is enough for everything but wildlife. The lenses are a lot lighter with MFT. I have a portable LED panel which I can clip onto the gimbal, together with a shotgun mike. I once met a chap in a National Trust garden in a wheelchair that was almost a recording studio, so can’t feel sorry for myself.
Click to expand...


I think you have added an important point about weight, that is it is not so much the pounds and ounces, but also the point at which what you carry becomes uncomfortable and kills the enjoyment. The last straw idea.

One of my G9s is in a small bag, with the 14-140 fitted, and a 100-300 along with a 25mm 1.7, so just about the same as you carry round your body. The other one is in a back pack with a 100-400, other lenses, remote, dot sight, TZ60 compact, ND filters etc. Guess which one gets out the most :)

The 100-300 is an amazing lens, very small and light if you think it is the same length as my friends Sony 200-600, and if I put it on the GX9, hardly bigger or heavier than a large bridge camera, and certainly easy to hand hold.
I'm sure there will be some times when his full frame and huge lens will give a better image, but I'm also sure that it would often not be noticeable a lot of the time. (I would normally use a G9 & 100-400)

It's all very well looking up the charts and saying there is only xxx difference in the weights between to set-ups and that is nothing, it may be nothing to those to whom weight is not an issue, but to others, it may be the difference that takes it across the line to being uncomfortable.

I do agree that it is not just weight, ie I find the G9 easier that the GX9 though it is heavier, it is easier to hold.
 
Sangoma said:
I think you have added an important point about weight, that is it is not so much the pounds and ounces, but also the point at which what you carry becomes uncomfortable and kills the enjoyment. The last straw idea.
Click to expand...
A good point. Also, How you carry the weight is important.

I've seen a lot of photographers with large bags slung from one shoulder, I did it myself, when I was young and stupid (are the two ever seperated?) However, I eventually wised up and realised that having the bag strap diagonally across my chest and adjusted so that the bottom of the bag was just on the top of my hip is far more comfortable and allows me to carry even a fairly heavy bag for much longer...

Female photographer 2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top