Looking for a lighter camera without sacrificing too much quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 8670
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 8670

Guest
Hi, TPers. Long time no see.

I've been shooting with DSLRs for 12 years. I tend to go on long walks with my camera. Sometimes countryside, sometimes towns. I usually carry a camera body and three zooms (standard, wide and tele), because I like to be prepared!

Until 18m ago, I was using a (FF) Nikon D800. I was getting fed up with the weight, and starting to regret upgrading from the D300-based kit I'd used before. So, I got a (APS-C) D500 and some crop lenses, thinking I'd be a lot lighter. I kept the D800 kit, in case I regretted it. It IS lighter, but it all still feels too heavy.

I'm starting to think I should sell it all and get something lighter still. But is this a realistic prospect, if I want to keep the image quality? Is there a camera with something approaching the control, flexibility and image quality of the D800 but in a smaller and lighter package? I know I'm being unrealistic, and will have to make compromises, but I have to ask!
 
Many people like the Fuji range. The Sony range are lighter / smaller than Nikon; but once you add their lenses the difference isn't much. Smaller than both would be the m43 ranges from Panasonic and Olympus but compared with full frame have small sensors so potentially lower quality.

As you acknowledge its about compromise. You could trade it all in for a Olympus OM-D E-M1 MkII and 12-100mm f/4 lens and the whole kit would cover equivalent of 24-200 for around 1kg vs a D500 + 18-55 f/2.8 weighing around 1.5kg.
 
Yes, the lenses. My logic for going from full-frame to APS-C was smaller lenses, but the 16-80mm travel zoom is still a significant size, though not in the same league as the 24-70mm.

I miss the image quality of the D800. The D500 is ok, but not in the same class. I feel like I'm compromising quality for not much gain in lightness.

This got me thinking that my old Yashica 35mm SLR was a lot smaller that the stuff I carry nowadays. Surely, SLRs don't have to be so massive. Or maybe should try something more like a rangefinder.

I had a Panasonic GF2 and a GX1, but the image quality wasn't that good, and I didn't like using the rear monitor to frame my photos. Give me a viewfinder!

I've looked at a few cameras online. The choice is mindboggling. I'm probably going to dirty a few cameras at the NEC, but it would be good to know which cameras to look for.
 
Yammer said:
Yes, the lenses. My logic for going from full-frame to APS-C was smaller lenses, but the 16-80mm travel zoom is still a significant size, though not in the same league as the 24-70mm.
I've looked at a few cameras online. The choice is mindboggling. I'm probably going to dirty a few cameras at the NEC, but it would be good to know which cameras to look for.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan myself ... but the Sony A7RIII would be the ideal lighter body with quality of a D800. The A7RIII is around 300g lighter than the D810.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#724.514,557.637,ha,t
 
Wow. What a great website. Just been looking for something like this. Thanks.
 
Eloise said:
Many people like the Fuji range. The Sony range are lighter / smaller than Nikon; but once you add their lenses the difference isn't much. Smaller than both would be the m43 ranges from Panasonic and Olympus but compared with full frame have small sensors so potentially lower quality.

As you acknowledge its about compromise. You could trade it all in for a Olympus OM-D E-M1 MkII and 12-100mm f/4 lens and the whole kit would cover equivalent of 24-200 for around 1kg vs a D500 + 18-55 f/2.8 weighing around 1.5kg.
Click to expand...

People keep saying this and it's not strictly true :D The size of the camera and lens package depends on what lens you pick so yes with a big fat f2.8 zoom or 85mm f1.x the size and weight advantage of the Sony may look less but with the Sony you have the ability to mount a compact prime on it for a MFT or Fuji APS-C sized package. You can't do that with a DSLR.

Back to the OP.

I suppose a lot hangs on the quality you expect and this can depend upon how big you print or how close you pixel peep. If you don't print the size of a barn or pixel peep at 300% MFT may offer you the most saving in bulk and weight especially if you go for one of the RF style bodies.

I have Panny GX7 and GX80 and the image quality is very good and it's only at very large prints / very close viewing and also at stratospheric ISO's that differences can be seen and FF takes a lead.

In your position I'd take a look at the newly announced Panny GX9.

Some of the MFT lenses are absolutely excellent.
 
woof woof said:
People keep saying this and it's not strictly true :D The size of the camera and lens package depends on what lens you pick so yes with a big fat f2.8 zoom or 85mm f1.x the size and weight advantage of the Sony may look less but with the Sony you have the ability to mount a compact prime on it for a MFT or Fuji APS-C sized package. You can't do that with a DSLR.
Click to expand...
With respect you can mount small lenses on dSLRs too and while the Sony A7 range still have a size advantage the overall package is much more compact. But the OP was talking about carrying three zooms and later comments suggested f/2.8 type zooms ... and when you are carrying that the A7's size advantage over a D750 / D850 falls to be (somewhat) insignificant.

The only point you have a size advantage really is if you deliberately restrict yourself to small lenses.

But this is a pointless debate ... however I do agree with you (and others) that looking at modern m43 (Panasonic or Olympus) is something the OP needs to do especially given the range of options/body styles there are available.
 
I sometimes sell 'fine art' prints, anything from 7x5" up to A2.

Mostly, I print between A4 and A3. I'm thinking minimum 20-24MP will probably cover it, though obviously it's not that simple.
 
It's been 5 years since I owned a u4/3 camera (Panasonic GX1) and I wasn't overly impressed with image quality. I'm guessing they're better these days?
 
Ok I have the A7R-III which is a beautiful camera but if you are looking for a noticable change between DSLR and something else then I would not recommend it because the weight difference in cameras (DSLR -> Sony A7RIII) is marginal at best and in some cases the Sony lenses are heavier than DSLR equivalents!

So much so, I have no plans to sell my Olympus kit (OMD EM5, Leica Summulix 25mm 1.4, Oly 7-14 Pro, Oly 40-150mm Pro) as they are a perfect balance between quality, functionality, size and weight. In fact the quality will knock your socks off. Pure beautiful even in raw format with minimal processing.
 
Yammer said:
It's been 5 years since I owned a u4/3 camera (Panasonic GX1) and I wasn't overly impressed with image quality. I'm guessing they're better these days?
Click to expand...

m4/3 has moved on a lot from the GX1. If you do most of your photography at lower ISOs Olympus/Panasonic will deliver excellent results. I'm shooting mostly Olympus these days but still have a Canon 5DIII with a number of prime lenses and I reach for my Olympus kit 80-90% of the time. Even when I pick the 5DIII I struggle to get better overall results than with my E-M1 MkI, possibly because my technique still needs working on. The Olympus primes and PRO lenses are optically second to none in my experience but you have to factor in some more sensor noise in m4/3, especially at higher ISO's. The E-M1 MkI is a significantly better camera than the GX1 in every way and is a bit of a bargain used at the moment, so that may be worth having a look at.

Here is a thoughtful review from a pro photographer and former Nikon ambassador who switched to Olympus:

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html
 
I moved from a D800E and big hefty lenses to the Fuji system and never regretted it. Smaller, neater, lighter, more fun to use in general. It wasn't just weight that made me switch, tbh i was bored rigid using Nikon gear. I had the D200, D90 and D800E over the span of 10 years or so, and though the D800 cameras are fantastic beasts for image quality, I find them barely more satisfying than a chore to use. Fuji cameras just have something ... they make you want to get out there and shoot more. I have switched yet again, to M43, and once again, do not regret it, i am never tied to any system, I go with what I fancy/can afford at any given urge. I have the Panasonic G80 now and a 25mm prime that I use most, currently looking for a nice neat tele lens and a macro or wide angle maybe. I find it fun to switch it up now and again. I don't think you can go wrong with any system nowadays, they all produce great quality, they all have their perks [M43's being the amazing IBIS for all lenses]

What you won't miss about the D800 is the RAW file sizes, i sure don't.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
With respect you can mount small lenses on dSLRs too and while the Sony A7 range still have a size advantage the overall package is much more compact. But the OP was talking about carrying three zooms and later comments suggested f/2.8 type zooms ... and when you are carrying that the A7's size advantage over a D750 / D850 falls to be (somewhat) insignificant.

The only point you have a size advantage really is if you deliberately restrict yourself to small lenses.

But this is a pointless debate ... however I do agree with you (and others) that looking at modern m43 (Panasonic or Olympus) is something the OP needs to do especially given the range of options/body styles there are available.
Click to expand...
er, no.

Go back to the comparison site and look an A7 with a compact prime like the 20mm f2, 35mm f2.8 or 55mm f1.8 and compare the packadge to a DSLR. Do that and look at the different views instead of posting the worst possible comparison top view to try and claim that a A7 and DSLR are the same size.

An A7 and big fat f2.8 zoom will not fit in a jacket pocket but an A7 and the 35mm f2.8 just might. I don't care what you fit to a DSLR, you'll never get a lens and body that compact.

I know what the op posted but I get irritated when people post misleadingly about the size of this stuff and link to the top view wihich is IMO mislwading. Look at the size of a DSLR v an A7, you're never going to claw that back and the Sony, as I mentioned, gives you the choice of going really compact.
 
A Sony FF compact job I would have thought.

M4/3 score like 600 on dxo sensor test, the d800 more like 3000.

Anyone who says M4/3 is just as good have been smoking something
 
This is great fun http://j.mp/2sYRCsl
Untitled-1.jpg

I've deliberately picked comparable EFL 24-120mm zooms (or thereabouts) on each camera.

Interestingly, Dxomark says the E-M1 II vs the D500 is 80 vs 84
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GTG said:
A Sony FF compact job I would have thought.

M4/3 score like 600 on dxo sensor test, the d800 more like 3000.

Anyone who says M4/3 is just as good have been smoking something
Click to expand...


Who said M43 was just as good? It's nowhere near as far behind as those numbers though. The numbers you're talking are only related to ISO performance btw. Only gear heads go by DXO, photographers don't care about numbers, they care more about the pleasure of shooting. DXO can stick their rulers
 
Last edited:
Go into a showroom, pick some up & play with them. Almost all of the modern stuff have 20 plus MP sensors. I personally like the Fuji range, but they take a bit of getting used to. 1.5 crop 24MP should cover the sizes your looking to print....
 
Cagey75 said:
Who said M43 was just as good? It's nowhere near as far behind as those numbers though. The numbers you're talking are only related to ISO performance btw. Only gear heads go by DXO, photographers don't care about numbers, they care more about the pleasure of shooting. DXO can stick their rulers
Click to expand...

I don't even reply to crazy people anymore lol. Bye
 
Honestly Keith if you want to lighten the load then you need to look at the lenses you use, swapping to 2 or 3 primes can save a bundle of weight over zoom's and using your feet to zoom can have health benefits.

I've been chasing light weight Vs Image quality for years and been through most makes including Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, before finally settling with the Sony A7riii, ok its at the heavy end of what I can personally manage when the 90mm Macro is on but the trade of is worth the increase in iQ, but with the 35mm, 50mm or even 85mm its fine for me and as said you save 300g on the body alone though you won't save much on the zoom lenses, especially is going for f2.8 ones.

I loved the Fuji X-Pro1, I still have them, loved the sensor in that camera, the way it draws and loved that the camera as a whole slowed me down and made me think about the shot but hated the later sensors output with the XT-1 &2 & X-Pro2.

The OMD - EM5ii & Pen F are both great at low ISO's with the Olympus pro lenses but noise starts to become an issue by around ISO 1600, especially if you want to crop the image or are shooting in low light.
 
Last edited:
Yammer said:
Yes, the lenses. My logic for going from full-frame to APS-C was smaller lenses, but the 16-80mm travel zoom is still a significant size, though not in the same league as the 24-70mm.

I miss the image quality of the D800. The D500 is ok, but not in the same class. I feel like I'm compromising quality for not much gain in lightness.

This got me thinking that my old Yashica 35mm SLR was a lot smaller that the stuff I carry nowadays. Surely, SLRs don't have to be so massive. Or maybe should try something more like a rangefinder.

I had a Panasonic GF2 and a GX1, but the image quality wasn't that good, and I didn't like using the rear monitor to frame my photos. Give me a viewfinder!

I've looked at a few cameras online. The choice is mindboggling. I'm probably going to dirty a few cameras at the NEC, but it would be good to know which cameras to look for.
Click to expand...
If you find the D500 quality poor compared to the D800 then discount any APS-C sensor or m4/3 then. TBH at normal viewing sizes I’m often hard pressed to tell the difference in IQ between my D750 and Olympus EM1 (subject depending etc).

The only camera I can think of that’s going to be smaller but give you comparable IQ is the Sony A7R range. As others have mentioned, depending on lens choice it might not work out that much smaller and lighter, but could be enough for you.
 
snerkler said:
If you find the D500 quality poor compared to the D800 then discount any APS-C sensor or m4/3 then.
Click to expand...
Out of interest (question to @Yammer ) did you try your “full frame” lenses that you like on the D800 on the D500? Could the lack of quality you’ve found with the D500 be down to the Nikon DX lenses?
 
Eloise said:
Out of interest (question to @Yammer ) did you try your “full frame” lenses that you like on the D800 on the D500? Could the lack of quality you’ve found with the D500 be down to the Nikon DX lenses?
Click to expand...
I don't think I've ever put my 24-70/2.8 or 24-120/4 on my D500, but I did buy the 24-70 when I was using a D300, and there was a massive difference moving to the D800.

Having said that, the 16-80/2.8-4 is a cracking lens which should not be underestimated. It may not be a four-figure lens, but it's as sharp as anything I've ever used and a respectable documentary/travel lens.
 
Fuji! Great range of cameras from the wonderful XT2 to the styling of the XPro - a great choice of very good quality lenses. If I was starting over again I would be every tempted but paid work (better flash options) and airshows mean I prefer the DSLR. I do use a Fuji X100F which is same sensor (?) as the XT2 and a great camera.
 
I have the Fuji X-T2. With the 16-55 f2.8 it's just as heavy as an SLR kit (it's probably lighter, but it's still "heavy"). However, the X-T2 and just the 14mm f2.8 is a very light combination. The 16mm 1.4 is heavier but also an excellent option. The 10-24 is surprisingly light as is the "kit" 18-55. The 35mm f1.4 & 23mm f2 are also really fab, light, small primes.

I regularly print fine art to 13x19 (A3+) with the occasional A2 and the quality is incredible. I'd even go so far as to say I prefer the results from the small 23mm f2 over the chunky, heavy 23mm f1.4.

Either way - after saying all that, your OP states 3 zooms + body. I swapped to Fuji due to weight, but carrying the 10-20, 16-55 & 55-200 is way way too much for me. If you're still looking to have all your zoom range covered in a light package I'd be guessing micro 4/3 is the way to go. the Sony A7 & Fuji are likely to be just as heavy once you tool up with all them zooms.
 
My solution to exactly the same problem has been a Fuji X-T20.
It is APS C size sensor but you have to compromise on something if you want to lose the weight.
Fuji has an excellent line up of lenses.
I still use my D750 as well, but for walk around the Fuji set up is much kinder to my body.
 
I’ve been using a Fuji XT-10 for the past three years, for when I don’t want to drag my D700 / D810 around all day. The Fuji’s use an aps size sensor so it’s a decent size and usable (to a point) at higher ISO’s, although that’s maybe less of interest for walking excursions. It’s also noticeably lighter and less bulky so much more comfortable to carry round all day. The lens range is excellent too.

I can’t speak for the micro 4/3 cameras as I’ve never used them although I do have an LX100 compact which has an older micro 4/3 sensor and it’s ok but not in the same league as the Fuji from what I’ve seen.
 
I went from APS-C to M43 for reasons of practicality. I can't comment on image quality based on experience so I won't.
You can try the latest and greatest Olympus kit for nothing if you are near to a participating dealer
https://wow.olympus.eu/
How the pickup and return works

The loan period runs over three days, so you are guaranteed to have a full day of testing. Please note that your Olympus dealer will ask for a security deposit for the rental period, which you will receive again after returning the products. To allow as many parties as possible to test our equipment, individuals can only test each product once. If your preferred loan date is not available from one dealer, please try an alternative dealer in your area, which may have the test kit available on your desired date.
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunately the reality is that there's a reason people carry around weighty DSLR bodies & FF lenses... image quality. So if you want to match the D800 quality with a smaller body it's a big ask. The suggestion to switch to primes instead of the 3 large zooms is a good one, I often just carry the D850, 20mm 1.8 & 70-200F4 or the 20mm + 85mm if I want to lighten the load... whilst you think you might miss shots what happens is you actually adjust to working with the focal lengths you have and get shots you probably wouldn't have with the zooms... I find having every focal length covered can be worse, you just end up constantly deliberating about which lens to use!

If I'm travelling I have a Sony A6000, great little camera... lightweight, convenient to carry around... is the IQ up to the D850 though... no, so you have to be prepared to trade quality for convenience sometimes if that's what you want

Simon
 
Last edited:
Pano TZ100 for me, I do plenty of hiking. my Canon 80D & lenses are too heavy, the TZ100 with 1" sensor, & great zoom range, really wide, suits me fine
 
Sony RX1rii? I realise it doesn't replace a bag full of zooms but just chucking it in there since nothing else really quite ticks all the boxes either. Must admit, I'd love to have a play with one.
 
gad-westy said:
Sony RX1rii? I realise it doesn't replace a bag full of zooms but just chucking it in there since nothing else really quite ticks all the boxes either. Must admit, I'd love to have a play with one.
Click to expand...

You could add X100F or LeicaQ as well. But maybe the OP should use something like Lightroom Analytics to see what is his most common focal length, and then buy a prime to suit. It doesn't have to be a fast prime as if you are going for IQ then a tripod will be use as well. Taking body and a single prime will significantly drop the bag weight over a couple of zooms.
 
I did my homework when I bought the D500. I made a spreadsheet with the weights of the bodies and lenses I had and planned to get, and worked out how much weight I was losing. It looked good on paper.

My original D800 kit was 3.55kg (nearly 8lb). Changing the zooms for slower and lighter variants saved about 0.8kg, but I decided that I didn't like the 24-85mm, and I never got around to buying the 18-35mm.

A D500 plus (non-chunky) variable aperture zooms came to 2.7kg - nearly 2lb lighter. To be frank, the two zooms in the backpack don't bother me too much - it's the weight of the camera itself: the D500 + 16-80mm, for example, is 1.4kg/3lb and still quite bulky.

So, whilst I could go Cold Turkey, and experiment with primes, the primary aim is to reduce the weight and bulk of the camera itself. Any pack weight reduction is a bonus.

Having said that, I'd already planned on restricting myself to the D500 + 35mm/1.8 (plus a 70-300mm/4.5-5.6) for the next few trips, as an experiment.
 
Off the top of my head the D500 is the heaviest APS C camera body around.
I understand that you already own the lenses.
Nikon make a number of APS C bodies that are significantly lighter. E.g D5500 or 5600.
 
ditch the 70-300 lens as you seem like a pixel peeper
the best dx lens for the d500 is the nikon 17-55 f 2.8
buy a d750 nikon 12-24 f2.8 and the nikon 70-200 f2.8
then you can print large as you like
also buy a black rapid strap for carrying your camera
if saving 2-3 pound in weight makes a big difference try some
strength building exercises
 
being serious here but what about enrolling at the gym and doing some resistance work to increase general strength, then it won't matter what kit you use re the weight.should only take 3 months of a good organised workout, the trainer should be able to give you a good routine personalised for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top