Why?

[magicaxeman]

As an ageing and severely disabled photographer I often find myself asking why manufacturers seem to think of weight as more of an after thought than a real issue.

I know many others in a similar position to myself and even more other photographers who are just getting older and finding the weight of their gear is getting to much are often thinking along similar lines and to be honest I have never heard of a manufacturer getting the views of photographers with more limited abilities on their equipment.

I fully appreciate that the weight of camera bodies in general has been coming down a little, especially with the emergence of compact system cameras and micro four thirds format camera's but I'm sure more work could be done in reducing the weight of both bodies and lenses.

I know many like myself have found they have to take a step down in sensor size or in the level of camera they use (Pro body to consumer body for instance) or settle for a camera that doesn't really do what they want it too in order to accommodate their physical limitations.
A classic example is my history, moving from medium format film to prosumer dslr - consumer dslr - pro level CSC - finally consumer level CSC and that longing and hankering for a full frame camera seems as far off as ever.
Looking into it recently there where a few possibilities, a few that might just have worked but either cost or lens weights has killed the idea off, in fact there only seemed to be one possibility that would really work well when it comes to weight whilst retaining the quality and thats the Sony RXRii but the limitations are the exorbitant cost (£3,000) and the fixed 35mm lens (not ideal for someone who can't use his feet to zoom).
A few others popped up such as the Leica SL which is surprisingly light as well as the Sony a7R/a7Rii which are both fairly light for a FF, but add a fast lens over 60mm and the weight more than doubles putting them out of reach and in the case of the Leica & a7Rii the price puts them out of reach to start with,

Hunting for a FF camera and lens combo that comes in under 1kg (90mm + lens) seems to be impossible in the digital camera world, the only option is to go back to film but then I personally lack the dexterity to load and unload film these days.

So what about all these fantastic new materials we hear about all the time?, what happened to carbon fibre & kevlar? both have successfully been utilised in the astronomy world for use in telescope optical tubes, items that are by design required to be both rigid and thermally stable, carbon fibre has been used in refractors, reflectors and many other more esoteric designs that require them to hold lenses, focusers, primary & secondary mirrors in precise alignment and survive the rigours of being transported to and set up in locations far from the madding crowds.
Why has no manufacturer taken the leap and tried them out for making lens barrels,bodies, battery grip bodies etc.

I personally thought I'd solved the problem for myself when the Fuji X-Pro1 came out, it ticked all the right boxes and I loved their idea of keeping things simple ( or keep it simple stupid as I prefer) but the replacement not only increased in weight but got more fiddly as well which along with the lens weights on longer lenses (90mm + again) necessitated a switch to M43 for hand held work.
But then even with the leaps and bounds made in M43 technology your still taking a big hit in resolution & high ISO noise performance not to mention the hit you take when it comes to shallow depth of field work.

Maybe as the population ages and less of the young stray from the confines of their mobiles into the world of real camera's the manufacturers will be forced to raise the priority of weight when it comes to camera's and lenses or maybe I and many like me will just have to accept that certain equipment/sphere's of our hobby will always remain out of our reach.

 

[woof woof]

I think that part of the problem could be that photography is mostly a mans thing and as we've seen on these forums there's a view that real men use big heavy cameras made of metal not plastic cameras that belong in girls handbags.

I'm reasonably happy as I now have digital cameras that are the same size as the 35mm cameras I used to own but as you've found digital cameras are heavier and of course lenses are bigger and heavier these days too because we expect optical perfection across the frame even wide open. Luckily I mostly use the 28-50mm range and reasonably compact and light modern lenses in this range exist.

I'll be amazed if we see the lighter and more compact cameras you're hoping for unless a bridge camera that suits you comes out (or maybe you'll grab a used bargain?) but other than that I don't think it'll happen unless some new technology comes along and is accepted by the big heavy gear loving male target group, ditto with the lenses.

 

[ecoleman]

So you want the manufacturers to develop a lighter system, retaining all of the features but aren't prepared to pay for it?

Pro cameras are designed to be heavy and rugged not because men like heavy cameras, but because they need to last on the sports fields, out in the wilds of Africa, in the freezing conditions of the poles, on the battle fields of Afganistan while at the same time we demand they are affordable.

 

[ljphil78]

I wouldn't have thought changing the casing of a lens from metal to carbon fiber would make that much of a difference when surely the majority of a lenses weight is the glass

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Pro cameras are designed to be heavy and rugged not because men like heavy cameras, but because

Cameras are not made heavy but performant,
reliable and consequently heavy. Just think of
all the heavy metals that are used in electronics.

More, once these electronic and mechanic parts
are attach to a lens, these elements should stay
together, aligned and perform flawlessly in all the
conditions Elliott has given

I wouldn't have thought changing the casing of a lens from metal to carbon fiber would make that much of a difference when surely the majority of a lenses weight is the glass

CF would be a great evolution in lens making but
metal is easier and faster to produce. Much faster
and so cheaper. CF barrels would increase the pro-
duction cost by at least 35 to 45 %!

 

[BlackCloud]

Cameras such as the Nikon D750 offer excellent FF quality in a relatively light body with plenty of buttons to access controls. It's the glass that is heavy. However photography for most of us is all about some sort of compromises... Even those without disabilities are still limited by the size and weight of what we can carry (or want to carry), what we can afford, etc. Maybe not get too hung up on gear. A camera and one or two lenses gets any of us out in the world to enjoy making pictures with what we have. Technology will move on and high quality will get smaller, lighter and more capable. At the turn of the last century photographers carried wood and brass equipment with glass plates in a suitcase and with a tripod. Now that quality is exceeded by something that sits on the palm of your hand. Sadly the laws of physics determine the size and weight of glass and commercial viability the expense of lightweight components presently. Roll on 2116 AD!

 

[Phil V]

I'm sorry your health means this is difficult for you.

I appreciate your frustration, however I disagree completely with many of your assumptions.

Bigger is better, simple physics at play there, bigger sensors = better IQ, and bigger pieces of glass = more light gathered.

Add to that people who pay lots for gear expect it to last, so it needs to be fairly robust, which again costs weight.

Then you found a solution you were happy with... But then...

If you were happy with the Xpro1 why 'upgrade'? I'm afraid that also makes no sense to me. You say you'd found a perfect system and then blame Fuji for spoiling it, I have no idea why Fuji are responsible for you changing camera.

 

[snerkler]

Like the others I empathise with your health issues, but unfortunately you can't defy physics. Large sensors means large image circles which in turn generally means large heavy glass. Yes there's other tech out there, and these new metalenses sound very exciting, but that tech's some way off and it'll be a long time before its cost effective after it has been developed.

And that's what it boils down to, cost effectiveness, as after all they're businesses. Also it would be a bold move from manufacturers to ask their customer base to ditch all of their current gear in favour of a new system. I'm sure it'll happen over time (probably not in my lifetime) but it'll no doubt be gradual.

 

[Nod]

Reach costs, both in terms of cash outlay and the weight involved. A bridge camera might be the answer but I doubt it would deliver the quality you're after.
Bodies are too ephemeral these days for super lightweight and strong plastics to be commercially viable and while plastic castings are quick and easy to mass produce, exotic composites aren't! As pointed out above, good optical glass isn't light so even in a light casing, the lens as a whole will be relatively heavy, even if weight has been pared down as far as possible to make the AF motors' work easier.

 

[mikew]

Before giving up on the larger heavier gear i did consider the Nikon 300mm PF mated to a consumer body,this would have given me a reduction but i had the fear the 300mm may need fine tuning on the focus and if i couldn't do it then i wouldn't be happy,i have gone m4/3 with every thing that entails,i have enjoyed the time when weight was no problem,there where still compromises as to what i could achieve with the gear i could afford so now i have accepted the new set of compromises,so long as i can keep taking pictures thats the main thing,i was never going to be more than a image recorder with the odd flash of inspiration,i am still happy most of the time with my new gear so thats all that counts for me.
Weight is irrelevant to the majority of purchasers and thats who the makers will produce for,as said lighter materials equate to higher prices if the durability is to be maintained.

 

[woof woof]

Pro cameras are designed to be heavy and rugged not because men like heavy cameras, but because they need to last on the sports fields, out in the wilds of Africa, in the freezing conditions of the poles, on the battle fields of Afganistan while at the same time we demand they are affordable.

There's no point in denying that some "men" do indeed prefer big metal gear as we've seen these comments on this and other forums. They may be a minority and I may have been a bit tongue in cheek making the comment but that preference and predilection definitely exists as does the thought that the bigger and heavier something is the more quality and the more you can charge for it. You only have to look at some of the frankly stupid comments made by "men" in the various CSC discussions.

And just on the quality point and particularly with lenses, what we are seeing at the moment is a move to larger and very high quality large aperture lenses some possibly designed to be used with higher MP count cameras than we currently have and that's all very nice for those who need 6ft wide gallery quality prints. For people who accept that their needs are a little more realistic there are still options but I do still accept the op's general point but I'm not sure that cameras and lenses made of exotic light materials are the answer, they may well fix the weight issue but the cost issue? I doubt it. We could see lighter and cheaper plastic bodies but there'd be market resistance to this, as there was when Canon went from magnesium to "plastic" with the 60D and the resultant angst of men posting on forums

 

[snerkler]

There's no point in denying that some "men" do indeed prefer big metal gear as we've seen these comments on this and other forums. They may be a minority and I may have been a bit tongue in cheek making the comment but that preference and predilection definitely exists as does the thought that the bigger and heavier something is the more quality and the more you can charge for it. You only have to look at some of the frankly stupid comments made by "men" in the various CSC discussions.

And just on the quality point and particularly with lenses, what we are seeing at the moment is a move to larger and very high quality large aperture lenses some possibly designed to be used with higher MP count cameras than we currently have and that's all very nice for those who need 6ft wide gallery quality prints. For people who accept that their needs are a little more realistic there are still options but I do still accept the op's general point but I'm not sure that cameras and lenses made of exotic light materials are the answer, they may well fix the weight issue but the cost issue? I doubt it. We could see lighter and cheaper plastic bodies but there'd be market resistance to this, as there was when Canon went from magnesium to "plastic" with the 60D and the resultant angst of men posting on forums

TBH I encounter this quite often from the general public too. When I've been to safari parks etc with my Tamron 150-600mm passers by have often commented saying "I bet you get really good pictures with that". Little do they know how poor my skills are

 

[tijuana taxi]

Sorry to hear that your disabilities have detrimental effect on your hobby, but does the 42g extra that the X-Pro 2 weighs have that much of an impact?

I agree about the Fuji lens range in many cases getting larger and heavier, but I just didn't buy them and kept to the earlier smaller, lighter and excellent ones.

 

[rjbell]

I think you're gonna have to make some compromise. What do you shoot most? You could have a fast light zoom like the game on 18-50 and a high mp camera and digitally crop if you need anymore reach?