Looking for a lighter camera without sacrificing too much quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 8670
  • Start date Start date
I tried the D5x00 years ago. Didn't like it. I like my controls on the outside. I guess I could have gone for the D7x00 instead, but was blinded by the D500's specs and the fact that I'd wanted a 'D400' for years (and eventually gave up and got a D800). Point taken. I'll look into it.

I owned a Black Rapid before they even sold them in the UK. Didn't like it either. Camera swung all over the place. I use a long strap across my chest and the camera rests near my hip. Seems to work best for me.

Not sure how carrying big f/2.8 zooms is going to help reduce weight and bulk. I actually owned a 17-55mm/2.8 for a week, and sent it back after comparing it with a cheaper and lighter lens and seeing no significant improvement. Yes, I was surprised too.

The 70-300mm is an excellent lens with some shortcomings. I wouldn't dream of ditching it.

Allergic to exercise. Walking several miles every weekend is my limit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, I went from Olympus E-PL5 to Sony A6000 and now I have Fuji X-T20. All I can say is this: The quality was never an issue in either of these cameras. I printed 100x50 cm photo from the Olympus and it looks just as good as from Sony or Fuji (I printed slightly smaller but still 80cm by something.).
I think you should look at what you like shooting (sorry, didn't read the whole topic). I.e. oly was kind of an entry camera and didn't have evf so I got rid of it, I'm also not that great in composing the shot, so 24 MP is a must to me. Again - not because 16 is too few, it's just that I am cropping. A6000 had a really really good image quality and it's so compact. I was rocking samyang 12mm f2 and the images are just insanely sharp. I used 18-105 f4 which in my opinion is also really sharp and was a perfect travel lens as I travel a lot. The only thing that was terrible was a battery life. You can buy 6 batteries, they don't take much space, but it's so tedious. Shortly after I switched to Fuji because of the hype and I partly regret, partly not. Firstly, evf and dynamic range on A6000 are better and that was great for landscapes. EVF has smaller resolution but is bigger and in Fuji it strains my eye :/. Dynamic range on Sony cameras is just great, I had to relearn taking photos because I noticed I can't pull back highlights as much as on Sony and it is noticable. Then there is a price difference, you can get two A6000 for the price of X-T20 (black friday deals or used) and invest more in glass. I am not switching back only because of the battery life and because I found the super cheap xc 55-230mm from fuji to be actually really sharp and quite an awesome lens and I really like the idea of the telephoto in landscapes more and more. Sony has 55-210 (or 50?) but looking at the images online I can see the difference in the quality.
I also think that if you look at telephoto m4/3 makes so much sense. Can you even get an 800mm lens for full frame? 100-400mm is available for panasonic and it's an awesome piece of glass. I think apsc is just where I want to be, having more reach and being able to still get some blur with fast primes. Again - as for the image quality, I don't know man... I wonder what's the threshold of money you need to spend on the camera (like this insane A7 iii line) to actually tell the difference. Hope it helps.
 
Wookie123 said:
Dynamic range on Sony cameras is just great, I had to relearn taking photos because I noticed I can't pull back highlights as much as on Sony and it is noticable.
Click to expand...

The Fuji's are very sensitive to blown highlights (the histogram helps here), but have very good shadow recovery, I'd be very surprised if the overall A6000 and X-T20 real world shooting dynamic ranges were not very similar, its just that each camera needs to be exposed slightly differently to get the best results.
 
Yammer said:
I tried the D5x00 years ago.
Click to expand...

I would have another look at the D5500/D5600, the combinations of controls and the rear touch screen seems a very workable solution to me, all in a body a bit over 400g. The new AFP series of DX lenses all seem to offer pretty good optical quality especially the tiny and light 70-300 f6.3 version, and the 24mp aps sensor is going to give quality close to the D500.

Given you already have Nikon lenses and bodies, this would seem to give the most flexibility to mix and match lenses and bodies to suit different situations, and even though I also have a couple of fuji x cameras, my next buy is going to be a D5500 body, for the reasons I give above.
 
The other thing to consider which makes a big difference is what you carry the gear around in...not all camera bags are equal when it comes to strap systems etc. In fact despite trying numerous brands including F stop and a couple of other very expensive options I never found anything that I was happy with. I now use a dedicated hiking rucksac with an excellent airflow harness system and with side pocket which takes a large padded insert, it makes a very noticeable difference when you're carrying heavy gear around all day.

Simon
 
One of these. Holds my gear perfectly and close to my back or chest. Only problem is a sweaty back!
576801.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Perceptive said:
Anything that works on one shoulder is never going to distribute the weight evenly, try a 'proper' rucksack, you may be pleasantly surprised at how much lighter your kit becomes/feels!!!
Click to expand...
That's a good point, I have become much less concerned about weight/bulk after changing from a ThinkTank shoulder bag to an F-stop Guru rucksack.
 
Yammer said:
One of these. Holds my gear perfectly and close to my back or chest. Only problem is a sweaty back!
576801.jpg
Click to expand...

To be honest that may be exacerbating the weight issue, I certainly wouldn't want to carry my D850 and lenses around in this for a day especially if hillwalking. I'd seriously look a decent rucksac with a good strap system which distributes the weight rather than concentrates it like this does. A good rucsac not only has the shoulder straps but a good waist strap which is designed to push the weight through your hips/legs instead of carry it around on your shoulders which will definitely become tiresome

Simon
 
Okay.

So my little suggestion I'm going to give based on what I use will exclude a fast zoom.

I have had the original A7 for about 3 years now (maybe 4) & for a long time I used manual lenses & the FE35/2.8. I'm now bored of trying to MF all the time so I'm selling a bit of my legacy stuff & have gone more native.

I currently have ....

A7 with L bracket.
FE35/2.8.
FE85/1.8.
The SEL 2870 kit lens.

All this comes in at under 1400 grams (under 900 without the primes) which I can carry it all day hiking no issues at all ,full frame 24mp IQ is more than good enough and it's what, £1500 used....??
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Anything that works on one shoulder is never going to distribute the weight evenly, try a 'proper' rucksack, you may be pleasantly surprised at how much lighter your kit becomes/feels!!!
Click to expand...

:agree:

With a bad back, I can't carry much weight. But I am amazed at what I can carry in a decent rucksack with chest and waist supports.

Try it, you may be surprised...
 
I generally carry two zooms in my backpack (about 1.2kg), and carry the camera separately. I'm not too worried about strain from the backpack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HVe you tried optech neoprene straps I have been using them for decades now my D810 & grip,D3 & D700 & grip all have them fitted I only usually carry one with me these days though if I feel the need to shoot FF.
I use 2 messenger style bags and split my gear into the two bags again each bag has a optech strap fitted and with back hip and knee problems it distributes the weight more evenly and gives quick access to your gear being carried on the hip.
Some times I pack just a couple of primes it just depends on where I’m going and what I plan on shooting.
As already suggested why not pack just a couple of primes ?
 
Last edited:
The Tamrac bag has a broad padded strap, so the weight is distributed pretty well, though only on one shoulder. It normally lies on the centre of my back. When the camera is out front, the bag usually contains 1.2kg, which isn't much weight to carry on my back. I only really feel it when I pack the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4, which isn't very often. It's mostly the weight/bulk of the camera and lens at the front which bothers me.

I bought an Op-tech strap a few years ago and didn't like it. I can't remember why. Possibly it wasn't long enough for cross-carrying. Maybe it was too 'grippy' to slide. I dunno. I've slept since then. I use a Lowepro Voyager S strap.

I've tried carrying primes. I never seem to have the right lens on the body. As I said above, I'm going to start carrying a 35mm prime instead of my mid-range zoom for a bit, as an experiment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Out of interest, I had a quick look and compared two similar kits...


upload_2018-3-2_14-21-6.png

Not sure if that's helpful or not.... But you can see that there is substantial difference in both the bodies and the longer lenses. The Nikon lenses are all heavier than their Fuji equivalents (I realise the 70-200 & 50-140 are different, but it's as close as you'll get).
 
Last edited:
I know they're not directly comparable, but this is what I'm usually carrying:
diff.png

:D
 
Yammer said:
I know they're not directly comparable, but this is what I'm usually carrying:
diff.png

:D
Click to expand...

That being the case I would be strongly tempted to stick with what you have as your familiar with your existing gear.
 
It's crying out for a decent backpack. Make sure you get one with the lap belt, that takes most of the weight
 
Yammer said:
I know they're not directly comparable, but this is what I'm usually carrying:
diff.png

:D
Click to expand...

If you replaced the 70-300 4.5 - 5.6 with the 6.3 version (losing only 1/3rd of a stop, and its getting very good reviews) you could bring that weight down by another 330g, and as I suggested in my other post, a D5500 would save about another 400g for when weight was important, with a small sacrifice in usability, but it makes for a high quality outfit at just over 1.8kg.
 
Yammer said:
... three zooms (standard, wide and tele), because I like to be prepared... Nikon D800.... want to keep the image quality... of the D800 but in a smaller and lighter package?...
Click to expand...
There have been lots of replies to this thread,
but D800 IQ with three big bright zooms = D800 with three big bright zooms, or a smaller Sony body with three BIG bright zooms for even more money :(

I suggest a small second system, m4/3rds, two zooms because you like zooms, buy cheap.

or

e-M10 and some primes.
 
Yammer said:
I know they're not directly comparable, but this is what I'm usually carrying:
diff.png

:D
Click to expand...

I just can't see why you carry the 12-24 & the 16-80. Drop one and you save yourself almost half a kilo. With the 70-300 in your bag, you can "foot zoom" to make the difference between 24 & 70mm.
 
holty said:
that bag weighs 2lb !!
so where is the weight saving there ?
try a i phone that is lightweight and fits in your pocket :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

try a bridge camera with a super zoom lens very light weight
Click to expand...

I haven't come across a weightless bag yet, though I usually cut off all the unused stuff to shave off a few ounces. I suppose I could get some helium balloons.

I already carry around an iPhone, but the picture quality isn't as good.
 
i have a drawstring bag made of gortex weighs nothing
about same weight as a carrier bag.

man up keith thats the solution !!
:LOL::LOL:
 
Yammer said:
I know they're not directly comparable, but this is what I'm usually carrying:
diff.png

:D
Click to expand...
But weight can also be reduced with Fuji replacing the 16-55 and 50-140 with the 18-55 and 55-200.
 
Not sure a drawstring bag is best protection for a few hundred quid's worth of glass, but thanks for the suggestion.

Other than 'manning up' and/or going on a weight training regime, the best 'same kit' suggestion so far is to switch the 70-300mm FF for a DX version. Well, it wouldn't necessarily be a switch, because my other camera is FF, so I'd probably keep the FF. So that's £300 to make my backpack 330g (12oz) lighter — although, the weight of the backpack isn't my primary concern. Still, that feels like £300 I could be spending on beer, or, as Holty would have it, Lambrini.

I'll see how I get on with the 35mm prime. If I take my wide and long zooms, I have to cover the 24-70mm range with my feet (and learn to lose lots of image in a crop), and probably change lenses more often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jelster said:
I just can't see why you carry the 12-24 & the 16-80. Drop one and you save yourself almost half a kilo. With the 70-300 in your bag, you can "foot zoom" to make the difference between 24 & 70mm.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm starting to think that it's not worth carrying the 12-24mm, as I hardly ever seem to use it. Back in my D300 days, I used the 16-85mm a lot. I bought a 12-24mm after a couple of years and was really pleased with it. The 12-24mm stayed on a lot longer than it does now. I'm not sure what's changed. Maybe it's time to look at the whole of my EXIF data again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top