Reasons to go Mirror-less?

Fraser Euan White

Fraser Euan White

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,062
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
What would be/were the main reasons you would/did choose a mirror-less camera over a DSLR?
 
Size/weight and cost of GAS ;)

For the past 2 years I have been hankering to upgrade my Canon 5D3 to the MK4. Back in June we had a week away and I took my Canon kit.........one long walk reminded just how heavy my backpack of gear was!!! Sadly, I am not getting any younger :lol:

Combine that with other than hiring there was no way I could justify the cost of adding 500 to 600mm reach I craved........ additional burden of weight not withstanding!

So some self analysis of what I need and how to "achieve" the photographic result I sought I have added the Olympus E-M1 mk2 kit.......and so far there has been nothing to make me feel I made a bad decision :)

FWIW today I was sorting my Canon gear picking what I will sell very soon but I will be keeping the 5D3 and my 24-105mm as that in recent times has been my walkabout and good though the E-M1 mk2 is at this stage I cannot see it equalling the Canon for non flash interiors I like to do on certain days out.
 
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I initially got a mirrorless camera as I've never been completely happy with the bulk and weight of DSLR's and the extra attention they sometimes draw. I thought going mirrorless would mean saving bulk and weight and getting less attention and it worked on all counts.

Later I came to like the things that the EVF brings such the whole WYSIWYG thing, seeing the shot before you take it, being able to focus just about anywhere in the frame, using the in view histogram as an exposure guide lead to a greater first time keeper rate and much less chimping and reshooting. Later still I got into manual lenses which are a breeze on mirrorless.

Fraser Euan White said:
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
Click to expand...

My A7 plus a compact prime is smaller than my 5D was and I'm pretty sure it's lighter too. I have the Sony 55mm f1.8 which is excellent but I mostly use a 35mm lens and my A7 with either my Sony 35mm f2.8 or Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 fits in a small Loweprow A100AW as does my Panasonic GX80 or GX9. It's surprising that a FF camera and lens fits in the same small bag that the Panasonic cameras fit in.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
Click to expand...

1. Latest mk3 Sony A7 is getting bigger and heavier and A9 is even more so. Lenses - good ones are quite substantial too, and many will just run adapted Canon ones for a start. So very little reduction...

2. Canon FF output is miles better than APSC and requires almost the same collection of quality lenses and pretty much same size of bodies (5D vs 7D? - same) make a no-brainer as long as you can finance it.

3. More like 85 + 35mmm perhaps. Or you can leave your supertelephoto and 5 speedlite collection at home and just enjoy a light combination of 24-70 and 70-200mm.

I am seriously surprised how weak and fussy humans became lately.

We should go back to debating which sensors produce the best colour rendition and resolution and the quality of lenses.... and editing techniques, marketing, etc...
 
johnf3f said:
I wouldn't choose a mirror-less camera.

Why?
No suitable lenses, I want to see where my subject is (not where it was), AF is not (yet) responsive and reliable enough, no suitably robust Mirror-Less bodies (yet), small/low voltage batteries etc etc.

They are great for some (many?) but, so far, useless to me. Some seem to like them though.
Everyone to their own - whatever suits one best.
Click to expand...

I think you're maybe behind the times a bit on one or two points. If you haven't tried the latest and greatest mirrorless kit maybe you can Google your way to some of the better reviews and blogs, visit the various threads or do what I do when I think kit is inadequate, look at what others are achieving with the same kit.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
1. Latest mk3 Sony A7 is getting bigger and heavier and A9 is even more so. Lenses - good ones are quite substantial too, and many will just run adapted Canon ones for a start. So very little reduction...

2. Canon FF output is miles better than APSC and requires almost the same collection of quality lenses and pretty much same size of bodies (5D vs 7D? - same) make a no-brainer as long as you can finance it.

3. More like 85 + 35mmm perhaps. Or you can leave your supertelephoto and 5 speedlite collection at home and just enjoy a light combination of 24-70 and 70-200mm.

I am seriously surprised how weak and fussy humans became lately.

We should go back to debating which sensors produce the best colour rendition and resolution and the quality of lenses.... and editing techniques, marketing, etc...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, just as a matter of interest how old are you?

The reason I ask is I have a D4 & with a 24-70 f2.8 + 70-200 f2.8, flashgun, tripod and a few bits and bobs there is considerable weight in the backpack for me (Not the best of health).

I'm interested if a Mirror-less would really save that much weight with the same combination of lenses? (If i was to keep the Nikon Glass I would have to add an adaptor to the Mirror-less camera and not sure the weight saving would be that much?)
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Thanks for the reply, just as a matter of interest how old are you?

The reason I ask is I have a D4 & with a 24-70 f2.8 + 70-200 f2.8, flashgun, tripod and a few bits and bobs there is considerable weight in the backpack for me (Not the best of health).

I'm interested if a Mirror-less would really save that much weight with the same combination of lenses? (If i was to keep the Nikon Glass I would have to add an adaptor to the Mirror-less camera and not sure the weight saving would be that much?)
Click to expand...

You would save a considerable sum by staying with Nikon glass, and it is very good glass. The weight saving in just a body alone would be negligible in the grand scheme of things and you'd compromise the flash system compatibility and versatility if that is important...

The very best mirrorless system is Sony FF. So if you fancy ultra high res in addition to D4 that's a very reasonable move to add A7RIII. I have a feeling for sports D4 still trumps A9 with Nikon glass on.

The lens data is all up at their site https://www.sony.com/electronics/lenses/t/camera-lenses
Same for Nikon and Canon so you can do the maths.

It doesn't look like there is much in the bulk savings.... The 16-35mm compared with canon f/2.8 III is just 110g lighter. that's around 15%, but Canon has an even lighter and much cheaper f/4 IS version that is insanely good.... It all gets very relative. Then how many batteries do you need for Canon (1-2) and for Sony (3-6)?

Honesty, throw in a 2L bottle of water, some snacks and your hike up the mountain will feel the same.

Unless you go mirrorless and f/2.8 (boring) small prime route or M43 small is not realistic.

P.S. I'm somewhere in the thirties :)
 
The weight saving, for me at least, is not in just the combination of a lighter body and lens but the whole bag. I mostly cycle when heading out to photograph, I also had surgey on my back some years back and it still pains me today. Every little helps. I can have a bag of primes , camera, flash and extras that weighs 1/4 what my old FF gear did.

Other reasons include:

  • IBIS, I prefer it to OIS in lenses because it works for all your lenses
  • The EVF - they have gotten much better, they're crisp and clear and you can have a tonne of information right there through the VF, or none at all - I like the wysiwyg benefit too
  • 4K video in very affordable bodies. Only the higher end dslrs have it, but you can get it in a very cheap M43 body like the G7
  • Cost of lenses - there's some really nice budget primes across the range for less than similar Dslr ones
  • True silent mode shooting using electronic shutter when needed
  • Discretion - the neat and tidy size, especially a small prime, nobody takes notice of you so it's easier to get good candids
  • Touch screen - some dslr have this now too so maybe that's not so specific to mirrorless now
 
Cagey75 said:
The weight saving, for me at least, is not in just the combination of a lighter body and lens but the whole bag. I mostly cycle when heading out to photograph, I also had surgey on my back some years back and it still pains me today. Every little helps. I can have a bag of primes , camera, flash and extras that weighs 1/4 what my old FF gear did.

Other reasons include:

  • IBIS, I prefer it to OIS in lenses because it works for all your lenses
  • The EVF - they have gotten much better, they're crisp and clear and you can have a tonne of information right there through the VF, or none at all - I like the wysiwyg benefit too
  • 4K video in very affordable bodies. Only the higher end dslrs have it, but you can get it in a very cheap M43 body like the G7
  • Cost of lenses - there's some really nice budget primes across the range for less than similar Dslr ones
  • True silent mode shooting using electronic shutter when needed
  • Discretion - the neat and tidy size, especially a small prime, nobody takes notice of you so it's easier to get good candids
  • Touch screen - some dslr have this now too so maybe that's not so specific to mirrorless now
Click to expand...

Hi Keith - did you go FF Mirror-less?
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Hi Keith - did you go FF Mirror-less?
Click to expand...


No, not yet at least. I shot Nikon FF for years though, I'm more comparing to that. I use micro four thirds atm, but am considering other options just to change things up. I have looked at Sony, their older FF models are very affordable now but I couldn't afford their pricier lenses, I would probably end up adapting older Canon lenses or something, so that got me thinking why not just move to a Canon dslr for a bit, as I have never tried them in the past ... I'm ever open to anything tbh. I would really miss the IBIS though
 
woof woof said:
I think you're maybe behind the times a bit on one or two points. If you haven't tried the latest and greatest mirrorless kit maybe you can Google your way to some of the better reviews and blogs, visit the various threads or do what I do when I think kit is inadequate, look at what others are achieving with the same kit.
Click to expand...

Or look at the fact that the longest high quality lens available is half the focal length that I use 90% of the time?

Incidentally I do not "Google" photography gear to find out what it will or won't do - I try it out personally. Reviews are biased (including the few that I have written!) because we all have different priorities etc so they are a poor guide to one's individual needs.

For me mirror-less is simply a no go (except for landscapes) as the AF/batteries/tracking/lenses/viewfinder/bodies (etc) are simply not up to what I need or are not made = mirror-less is just not there for me.

I am sure this will change in the future, but without bigger (higher voltage batteries), larger and more robust bodies + a viable optical TTL viewfinder - I can't see it happening soon.

We will see.............
 
Fraser Euan White said:
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
Click to expand...
I shoot mainly wildlife and have recently moved from canon 1D and sigma sport lens weighing around 6 kg to MFT the weight of my camera and long lens now is less than 1.5 kg I have noticed no noticeable change in photo I.q and can still shoot b.i.f . I did for a while try canon .M series cameras but the lens weight was unchanged , if your considering a 50mm for walkabout there are quiet a few good primes available or you can go down the route of legacy glass as most old glass works well with converters , i.e. in my bag I have a Helios 44M and a NIKKOR ais 50mm f1.4 .
There are lots of sample images in the threads re Panasonic and Olympus cameras on here ,next step is to visit a camera shop and try one
 
Weight, size ime not so bothered about, it did mean dropping format though to m4/3, the other options had negligible savings when you added a wildlife lens.
 
johnf3f said:
Or look at the fact that the longest high quality lens available is half the focal length that I use 90% of the time

For me mirror-less is simply a no go (except for landscapes) as the AF/batteries/tracking/lenses/viewfinder/bodies (etc) are simply not up to what I need or are not made = mirror-less is just not there for me.

I am sure this will change in the future, but without bigger (higher voltage batteries), larger and more robust bodies + a viable optical TTL viewfinder - I can't see it happening soon.

We will see.............
Click to expand...
Have you really looked at what’s available these days or just stating history , A/F no problems with mine on the Panasonic g80 ( which btw is mid range) plenty of options of focus points to .

Batteries well I get around 400 shots per battery in that camera and carry a spare that weighs a couple of ounces in my pocket if needed , my Olympus om10 mk2 I dunno not yet been able to run the battery down .

Robust bodies ,well not yet encountered a problem , but a camera is a optical instrument and a expensive one so always handled with care anyway

A viable optical v/f well that’s never gonna happen as there’s no mirror , but the latest EVF ones are as good as if not better than optical ones . I can track b.i.f with mine easily and for perched birds or static animals I can rattle off large high speed bursts faster and more accurately than with my previous 4 times heavier DSLR

Oh and lens length well I previously used a sigma 150-600 sport ,I now use a Leica 100-400 but with a 2x crop factor it outreaches the sigma .

And finally weight and price my camera and long range lens are around a quarter of the previous weight and a lot cheaper as well
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
Click to expand...


The reason I haven't gone FF Mirrorless is that you are right, a lot of the weight is in the lens.

Micro 4/3 has the smallest lenses of the main systems and the image quality is more than good enough for what I need, most of the time I had to look hard at 100% to see the differences between the FF kit and I thought 'what's the point'.

Also, with Oly cameras, the IBIS is absolutely fantastic, you get used to the benefits of the EVF too and now wouldn't want to be without them.

Last week I picked up my sister's pair of D750s with 24-70 and 70-200 attached and thought WTF, it's huuuugh! I seriously couldn't imagine having to carry all that around, no wonder she has a bad back. I can get two bodies and fisheye to 800mm (equivalence) in a small backpack, when I was in Alaska there were chaps with massive backpacks just for one lens!!! no way would I consider putting up with that and I'm a fit and healthy 39 years old.

See this shot, 800mm (equivalent) shot at 1/250s (!!), ISO1000 and a small crop. You could argue that IQ would have been better with another system but the IQ is good enough for me and I simply couldn't have got this shot with any other system as I wouldn't have been able to have that reach available in the middle of the wilderness. Also note that on any other system you would have needed to bump the ISO massively, the lens OIS works really really well.

Alaska-6164874 by Ned Awty, on Flickr
 
I have both Canon FF (1DX2 for BBL and BIF) a Canon 5D4 for other stuff and, most recently, an Oly OMD EM1 Mk 2. I wanted something lighter for travel and walking about. I have used the Oly a lot over the last few months to make myself more familiar with the controls and menus. The menus are different and some don’t like them but that doesn’t make them bad! I am very happy with the results from the Oly but sometimes I miss a shot because I don’t have the automatic hands that I have with my Canons. I have also seen some really fine shots on here using the 300mm Oly PRO; I think I might struggle to find things in the sky with that so haven’t acquired one yet. There’s another thread on here running at the moment where there is a lot of arguing about the technical qualities / numbers associated with it. Perhaps a bit of overthinking. I would suggest that go and do the Oly WOW over a long weekend. Don’t go mad on what you book out though as you can only book it out once. I went to the photoshow convinced that I was going to add get a Fuji system. I didn’t like the feel and the lenses I was interested in st the time seemed just as heavy. I have a shoulder injury that is slow and stubborn. I picked up Sony as well and then picked up the Olympus. I felt fab in my hands. Am I ready to sell my Canon gear? No, not yet. There is something about Canon FF that works for me. There is also something in the Oly that I really like.... perhaps the images look a tad like something from film, but don’t quote me on that. I cannot explain things using technical information. I have a friend or two who have gone to Sony and Fuji. One was travelling with a 10kg pack of Sony gear.... he was back up to two bodies and several lenses. :D
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I didnt buy ff mirrorless. I bought an x-t20 aps-c mirrorless

I thought about (another) crop body from Nikon but i decided it would encourage me to take more kit on travels with family rather than less. Crop mirrorless and a single 18-55. Just have to live with it- not looking to expand lens choices and would have taken an m43 or aps-c compact if i could find one that suited my hands

I have a 35 and 50 for the Nikon and a 24-105. These are good lenses and have been walkabouts but again the d810 or d850 with one of these lenses is a chunky piece of kit and i only use a wrist strap. It wasnt a choice of cheaper but making sure i took a camera with me.
 
Different tools for different jobs IMHO, like some others above I have FF and M43 (also APS-C...) whilst I'm not so bothered about weight I wanted something small and that is why I picked M43, if size was the main factor then there didn't seem much point in doing anything other than getting one of the smallest interchangeable lens systems available. The majority of the size and weight is in the lenses and loosely speaking the lens size is proportional to sensor size.

That the EM5 ii comes with a raft of fancy features, IBIS, focus peaking, various LE and night modes, flip out screen are an added bonus.
 
Size and weight, but mainly because i'm a cool b*****d and didn't want to be confused for a wedding photographer.
Also they are not liked by traditionalists meaning I wouldn't be allowed in an old farts camera club

You get a nicer type of person on the mirrorless threads, more of them seem to take photos than the DSLR mob
 
Last edited:
Had full Canon FF setup. Was going travelling/backpacking for a year. FF was going to be too heavy. But still wanted to take nice pics. So went M43. I sometimes (especially lately) really want FF again, but I think it would be to compliment my equipment rather than swap one format to another.

Now to explain this to the wife...
 
The size thing can be a big driver but there is rarely that much difference on a true like for like basis. I think many people move from a big DSLR to a smaller format mirror-less system and it gives them all the benefits of size reduction but of course with a slight compromise on sensor size. Fast zoom lenses seem to be more or less the same size and weight wise though there are some really nice small primes about that take advantage of shorter flange distance mirror less offers. That's when size benefits can really count. So a Sony A7 with a 24-70 2.8 stuck on the front might not be much smaller than a D750 with a 24-70 on it but the Sony has the the option of sticking a 35mm pancake on it and doing a very good impression of a travel camera when the mood takes That's a neat trick. That's a great option to have.

But ignoring size, these are things I like about mirrorless:

Widely adopted IBIS
WYSIWYG viewfinder
Never have to calibrate a lens ever again
Better silent shooting options
 
Main reason - EVF

Other reasons:
Size, GAS and more recently I have come to really appreciate eyeAF.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
For those that are picking size/weight:

(1) Is FF mirror-less camera and an equivalent lens that much lighter - there is a lot of weight in the lens?

(2) For those with FF Nikon or canon gear why not a lighter crop sensor DSLR from the same manufacturer where your current lenses would be compatible?

(3) Did anyone consider just buying a standard prime (50mm) lens for their camera to use for street/travel as surely this would be the lightest/cheapest option?

Thanks
Click to expand...

1. To change to FF mirrorless wouldn’t really give any significant weight advantage for my photography although Sony have brought out a 400 2.8 thats appreciably lighter than Canons. If you’re a photographer that can take advantage of some of the smaller primes then maybe a good move. I don’t see enough advantages in mirrorless over the DSLRs that I use to seriously consider it. The wider AF area and IBIS are perhaps the most attractive.

2. Went from APS-C to FF and then bought a 7D MkII when they came out. Still quite a large camera with a grip and not much lighter. Just too noisy compared with the FF so sold it.

3. Don’t do street or travel photography.

I did seriously consider buying a M4/3 set up recently. Oly M1-MkII, 300 f4 and a couple of other lenses. Bought a D850 and 200-500 instead. It’s hard to give up FF when it comes down to it.

I’d still like to give M4/3 a go so may buy something like a EM5 or EM10 and one lens and see how I get on. If I like it then could sell some of my Canon gear to fund a decent set up. If not then sell the M4/3.
 
Last edited:
Weight and size.

My back was playing up and was leaving the FF gear at home instead of taking it out on a walk.

I went with the Olympus EM5MK2 with 12-40mm f2.8 (boring) lens kit.

Superb image quality and at normal print sizes the shots in the studio are comparable to the FF ones I used to shoot.

Bought a M43 to Pentax K adaptor Friday and shot some nice images over the weekend using my missus' Chinon 50mm f1.9 lens.

40 years old and still a great bit of glass.


I've also had good results from an old Vivitar 28-80mm zoom.


[URL='https://flic.kr/p/N5ikAW']Rosie Chinon 50mm f1.9 by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
 
If I change their will be no difference in weight. The A7iii & 70-200 2.8 is really no lighter than my D750 with 70-200 2.8.

If I didn't need the 2.8 then weight saving would of course be beneficial.

If anything I might buy a small mirrorless camera and keep my D750.
 
Seems to me that if you're bent on sticking with FF then you can't save much weight (the weight of a mirror mechanism isn't much). A reason to change in that circumstance might be to switch from optical VF to electronic VF with as said wysiwyg exposure rendition and the possibility of focus peaking?
 
johnf3f said:
Or look at the fact that the longest high quality lens available is half the focal length that I use 90% of the time?

Incidentally I do not "Google" photography gear to find out what it will or won't do - I try it out personally. Reviews are biased (including the few that I have written!) because we all have different priorities etc so they are a poor guide to one's individual needs.

For me mirror-less is simply a no go (except for landscapes) as the AF/batteries/tracking/lenses/viewfinder/bodies (etc) are simply not up to what I need or are not made = mirror-less is just not there for me.

I am sure this will change in the future, but without bigger (higher voltage batteries), larger and more robust bodies + a viable optical TTL viewfinder - I can't see it happening soon.

We will see.............
Click to expand...

Apologies but you are making some rather sweeping statements and I do think that you are maybe a little out of touch with what the current market leading kit can do. I do think that rather than making rather all encompassing statements it's best to stick to specifics or at least as specific as we can be.

Your comment about the long lens is specific without being but maybe that's the end of it for you... but on your other points I do think you're being rather dismissive and perhaps doing so without being fully informed.

For example, I only have basic mirrorless kit but some of it when fitted with the right lens focuses for all intents and purposes instantly. All I have to do is point the camera and press the shutter button and by the time my finger has gone from half to full press the gear has metered and focused and it takes that shot. That's just a small example which does seem to contradict your view that with mirrorless you can only photograph where your subject has been... but as I said these things need to be specifics and if you think about your specific needs and if a mirrorless camera can meet them or not dispassionately and objectively and come to the same conclusion then fair enough :D

If you only believe your own experience (and why not) that's all well and good too but surely it's best to try the best before writing off everything? But generally I think I'm knocking my head against a brick wall here and I think the issue is that you've made your mind up already.
 
I didn't go mirrorless per se, I went m4/3 from APS-C to cut down on size / weight, but now I have gone mirrorless I can't understand why I didn't go that route to begin with, I only bought my APS-C DSLR last year and should've given it more thought / done more research and saved myself the trouble.

Having not been around photography forums long either I don't really get the "mirrorless -v- mirrored" debate.

If mirrorless had come first, and then someone came up with the idea of sticking a mirror in front of the sensor, would anyone have said "wow, brilliant idea", or would the collective response have been "why"?
 
mark.roper said:
If mirrorless had come first, and then someone came up with the idea of sticking a mirror in front of the sensor, would anyone have said "wow, brilliant idea", or would the collective response have been "why"?
Click to expand...

A very good point :D
 
The EVF is a big plus for me. They are so fast now, you don't notice it's not optical, but you get all the benefits of realtime preview etc.
This means I spend more time looking through the camera ready to shoot and less (to none) time chimping.

Focus - Less faffing around with micro adjustments (I spend many hours on my Canon gear to little avail), and a much much easier experience on manual focus if I choose to.

Size is only a factor for me in that I downsized from FF to APS-C, so could benefit from smaller lenses - and the fact that, for Fuji at least, these are better than the equivalent Canon APS-C lenses, and a lot smaller than the Canon FF L stuff which was really weighing me down. Appreciate I'm comparing apples and oranges here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top