I'm needing a smaller/lighter setup

wilt

wilt

Messages
1,453
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I currently use a Nikon D500 and D850. I suffered from arthritis for years and recently shot another mma event. I ended the day with very painful arms and shaking quite a bit with the weight of the gear.
A friend recently switched from his D4 to an X-T3, but I was thinking of getting a Sony a9. I shoot mostly portraiture and sports. I never do landscapes or architecture photography.
Has anyone made the move from the above cameras to the a9? And if so what is your experience? Would I save much weight? as I used a battery grip on the D850 to get me the 9fps. I'm leaning towards the a9 due to the auto focus speed, full frame, fps and eye af.
 
Last edited:
The only weight you’ll save is the body, lenses will be pretty much the same. The A9 is approx 330g lighter, or about 630g lighter if you use that ungripped vs the D850 gripped. Depending on the lenses you use with that will determine whether this weight saving is significant or not, although using an A9 ungripped vs a D850 gripped is a significant saving regardless imo.
 
It depends on the lens choice you make...

As you say portraits, If you go with the 85 1.8 for example, paired with an A9, yes - significant weight saving. If you go with the 84 1.4GM, not so much! the 85 1.8 is an amazing lens, I bought the 85 1.4GM because I wanted 'the best' but not so sure it was a wise decision.

Similarly, the 24-70 f/2.8GM is a beast - again I purchased because it's a GM. After the fact I became aware of the Tamron equivalent - a lot lighter, but my heart struggles with 3rd party (for no valid reason what so ever), so again, I end up with the heavy beast etc...

Sports - the long lenses are all pretty much the same regardless of Canon / Nikon / Sony, so a big lens is still going to be a big lens and what's where the weight it. The A9 itself feel ridiculously light.

The A9 gives you choices - but you need to let the head rule the heart when buying the lenses or the overall weight difference will be minimal.
 
Small and Light you might want to check out the Olympus m43 .

Rob.
 
As Rob said above: consider M43. For minimum weight I carry a pair of Panasonic GM5s. One has the default 12-32mm and the other the 45-150mm. For wide shots I'll add an Olympus E-PL5 with the 9-18mm. For air shows I use a Panasonic G9 with the 100-400mm. I used to carry a Canon 1Ds II with the 80-200L. The Panasonic set up gives me 4x the reach for 1/3rd the weight!
 
I understand the need for saving weight but if you shoot sports with telephoto lenses your best option is to make use of crop factor of smaller formats. FF telephoto lenses are going to be huge regardless.
While you will make some weight saving on the body moving to sony, which lenses do you plan on using? Would they make a decent weight saving?
 
I use M43 and think its the best thing since...well whatever, but it does have its limitations. Image quality wise its almost as good as a full frame camera, only intense pixel peeping would see the differences. Lowlight though is definitely its achilles heel. It'll be great for portraiture with a wonderful lens line up but if your shooting sports in low light then I'm not sure its the best choice for you.
 
Just a couple of things to think about...

How about an A7III instead of an A9?

I have an A7 and also a couple of RF style Panasonic MFT cameras (16mp GX80 and 20mp GX9) and I'd agree with Steve above that the image quality is good especially for whole pictures viewed anything like normally with MFT only falling behind when pixel peeping and at the very highest ISO's. The RF style MFT bodies probably offer the biggest bulk and weight savings but not everyone is happy with the smaller bodies, some prefer the mini RF style cameras. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 which might be nice for portraits, it's tiny, weighs next to nothing and is sharp from wide open.

Lastly for portraits do you need f1.x? I ask because at these apertures DoF will be very thin and for most portraits I'd be stopping down a bit and when doing that the smaller and lighter f1.8 lenses maybe aren't at such a disadvantage.
 
wilt said:
I currently use a Nikon D500 and D850. I suffered from arthritis for years and recently shot another mma event. I ended the day with very painful arms and shaking quite a bit with the weight of the gear.
A friend recently switched from his D4 to an X-T3, but I was thinking of getting a Sony a9. I shoot mostly portraiture and sports. I never do landscapes or architecture photography.
Has anyone made the move from the above cameras to the a9? And if so what is your experience? Would I save much weight? as I used a battery grip on the D850 to get me the 9fps. I'm leaning towards the a9 due to the auto focus speed, full frame, fps and eye af.
Click to expand...

I moved from a D750 and weight saving when the 2.8 is attached in minimul, but hook it up to say a Samyang/Sony 35mm its a great light set up.

Unfortutantly for sports - most lenses are the weight bearer.
 
Don't think I've seen it suggested by an obvious help is a monopod to take the weight, bit cumbersome, but needs must (I'm rapidly approaching the same problem but intend keeping my D500 and 610 and finding a way to use them.)
 
Dave Pickett said:
Don't think I've seen it suggested by an obvious help is a monopod to take the weight, bit cumbersome, but needs must (I'm rapidly approaching the same problem but intend keeping my D500 and 610 and finding a way to use them.)
Click to expand...
I tried the monopod route but I just find them too restrictive. YMMV (y)
 
A monopod can be great if a wild animal ever attacks you though!
 
wilt said:
I currently use a Nikon D500 and D850. I suffered from arthritis for years and recently shot another mma event. I ended the day with very painful arms and shaking quite a bit with the weight of the gear.
A friend recently switched from his D4 to an X-T3, but I was thinking of getting a Sony a9. I shoot mostly portraiture and sports. I never do landscapes or architecture photography.
Has anyone made the move from the above cameras to the a9? And if so what is your experience? Would I save much weight? as I used a battery grip on the D850 to get me the 9fps. I'm leaning towards the a9 due to the auto focus speed, full frame, fps and eye af.
Click to expand...

The weight is in the lenses, and you have a bunch of top-end f/2.8 zooms and a big 200-500, plus two bodies. Only two ways to save significant weight there - reduce format and reduce focal length accordingly, then swap 2.8 zooms for f/4 versions. There's no easy or ideal solution, you've got to compromise.

The other thing is, are you carrying this stuff efficiently, or taking more gear than you need? A heavy bag on just one shoulder is a killer but if you can spread the weight evenly across shoulders, back and waist it almost vanishes. Look at sling-straps (eg Black Rapid and Peak Design etc), waist/shoulder bags like the excellent Think Tank Speed Freak, body harnesses and backpacks (y)

Eg, with an outfit like yours I would sell the D850 and just use the D500, swap 2.8 zooms for f/4 versions, swap the 200-500 for an 80-400 (sell 70-200?) or perhaps just add a 2x telecon to your 70-200/2.8, carry the camera/lens on a sling strap with a TT Speed Freak over the other shoulder. Much less weight, comfortably spread, easy access to everything. Lots of options TBH, but no free lunch.
 
HoppyUK said:
The weight is in the lenses, and you have a bunch of top-end f/2.8 zooms and a big 200-500, plus two bodies. Only two ways to save significant weight there - reduce format and reduce focal length accordingly, then swap 2.8 zooms for f/4 versions. There's no easy or ideal solution, you've got to compromise.

The other thing is, are you carrying this stuff efficiently, or taking more gear than you need? A heavy bag on just one shoulder is a killer but if you can spread the weight evenly across shoulders, back and waist it almost vanishes. Look at sling-straps (eg Black Rapid and Peak Design etc), waist/shoulder bags like the excellent Think Tank Speed Freak, body harnesses and backpacks (y)

Eg, with an outfit like yours I would sell the D850 and just use the D500, swap 2.8 zooms for f/4 versions, swap the 200-500 for an 80-400 (sell 70-200?) or perhaps just add a 2x telecon to your 70-200/2.8, carry the camera/lens on a sling strap with a TT Speed Freak over the other shoulder. Much less weight, comfortably spread, easy access to everything. Lots of options TBH, but no free lunch.
Click to expand...
TBH, assuming shooting ringside I'd be using a 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4/f1.8 and/or 85mm f1.4/1.8, much lighter than any of the zooms.
 
snerkler said:
:bat:
Click to expand...


That's just for the average mortal, me, I'd wrastle a mountain lion bare handed.

Never actually used a monopod, thought about them before but just as much a PITA as a small tripod really. This is why I love IBIS so much, and carry a mini table top tripod in the bag always, do forget it's there at times. Placed on a wall or bin or fence - voila - taller tripod!
 
Cagey75 said:
That's just for the average mortal, me, I'd wrastle a mountain lion bare handed.

Never actually used a monopod, thought about them before but just as much a PITA as a small tripod really. This is why I love IBIS so much, and carry a mini table top tripod in the bag always, do forget it's there at times. Placed on a wall or bin or fence - voila - taller tripod!
Click to expand...
I've got a gorillapod for the same reasons, not used it yet :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
I've got a gorillapod for the same reasons, not used it yet :LOL:
Click to expand...

Had a couple of those along the way too, found even the one specifically for heavier dslr couldn't hold body with large lens very well - used it about 4 times in 2 years

Another advantage for M43 - even the teensiest tripods will hold body + non pro tele lenses without fuss
 
I currently use gripped D850 + 24-70 f2.8 and D500 24-120 f4 cageside. I'd love to be able to use f1.8 primes but the chances of getting anything in focus is nigh on impossible.
For other sports I use the gripped D850 + 70-200 and D500 + 200-500.
Portraits it's the ungripped D850+ sigma 135mm f1.8, nikon 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4.
I use a Lowepro backpack with waist support and a BlackRapid Breathe Double.
I love both cameras but weight is starting to mean I don't take them out as much, This weekend was the first this year.
 
wilt said:
I currently use gripped D850 + 24-70 f2.8 and D500 24-120 f4 cageside. I'd love to be able to use f1.8 primes but the chances of getting anything in focus is nigh on impossible.
Click to expand...
Why's this? I used the 50mm f1.8 at boxing and found focussing quick enough, certainly quicker than the 24-120mm f4 (y)
 
I certainly don't doubt that the focus is faster on the 50mm, but I need something a bit more versatile as one minute they are practically a foot from my face and the next they're at the far end of the octagon. Also boxing rarely ends up rolling about on the floor so is more predictable IMO.
The 24-120 isn't overly heavy, just combined with the camera and holding it up to my face for hours on end.
 
Last edited:
wilt said:
I certainly don't doubt that the focus is faster on the 50mm, but I need something a bit more versatile as one minute they are practically a foot from my face and the next they're at the far end of the octagon. Also boxing rarely ends up rolling about on the floor so is more predictable IMO.
The 24-120 isn't overly heavy, just combined with the camera and holding it up to my face for hours on end.
Click to expand...
TBH I don't really know how big the octagon is, with the boxing ring they're never that far away that the 50mm is too short, especially with the D850 where you can crop. Obviously you know what is needed much more than I do (y). Do you find the f4 a hinderance in terms of noise, the boxing events I did were poorly lit often requiring 6400 and 12800 ISO even at f2.8 and f1.8 with 1/160 shutter :eek:
 
snerkler said:
TBH I don't really know how big the octagon is, with the boxing ring they're never that far away that the 50mm is too short, especially with the D850 where you can crop. Obviously you know what is needed much more than I do (y). Do you find the f4 a hinderance in terms of noise, the boxing events I did were poorly lit often requiring 6400 and 12800 ISO even at f2.8 and f1.8 with 1/160 shutter :eek:
Click to expand...

Lighting is always very poor at these amateur events. As long as the crowd can see something then that'll do, is normally the attitude. Sometimes they are held in hotel function rooms with quite low ceilings which is even worse as the lights are always in your shots.
The f4 is terrible to be honest in regards to adding noise, I have to have a minimum of 1/500th shutter or blur is a major problem. So i normally end up with a muddy shot.
It's sometimes held in a concert hall with high ceilings and an even light pattern, but the promoter I photograph for has a red mat in the octagon and this causes a serious red tint to everything, especially when they are grappling.

One from saturday.
SFP_0620-Edit-Edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
TBH I don't really know how big the octagon is, with the boxing ring they're never that far away that the 50mm is too short, especially with the D850 where you can crop. Obviously you know what is needed much more than I do (y). Do you find the f4 a hinderance in terms of noise, the boxing events I did were poorly lit often requiring 6400 and 12800 ISO even at f2.8 and f1.8 with 1/160 shutter :eek:
Click to expand...

Did you not find the DOF incredibly unforgiving at f1.8? Great for lowing the noise but if the two boxers/mma fighters are not on the exact same plane of focus then not much would be reasonably sharp.
 
wilt said:
Did you not find the DOF incredibly unforgiving at f1.8? Great for lowing the noise but if the two boxers/mma fighters are not on the exact same plane of focus then not much would be reasonably sharp.
Click to expand...
I found that it didn't matter if both weren't in focus as long as the main subject was. I don't know where all my pics have gone tbh, I've only got this one on Flickr (and it's not great tbh) that was shot with the 50mm, I'll have to go through my old external drives later to find the others.

DSC_2376 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Looking through the few others on Flickr shot with the 24-70mm f2.8 I was mainly between 50-70mm, such as this at 68mm

DSC_2541-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

I did shoot the odd one at 24mm

DSC_1187 by TDG-77, on Flickr

I also preferred to process in mono as I think it suits the noise better, this one needed quite a lot of NR to make it half decent imo. The light that night was by far and away the worst I've ever shot in, both in terms of quantity and quality :(

DSC_9884 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
I also like converting to B+W, like you say the noise suits it better and in my case it removes the horrible red tint to skin tones.
Were you shooting ringside? Through the ropes? I have chain link fencing to contend with which is another thing to add to the already difficult mix.
 
wilt said:
I also like converting to B+W, like you say the noise suits it better and in my case it removes the horrible red tint to skin tones.
Were you shooting ringside? Through the ropes? I have chain link fencing to contend with which is another thing to add to the already difficult mix.
Click to expand...
I was ringside shooting over the ropes, clear view in that regard.
 
wilt said:
I certainly don't doubt that the focus is faster on the 50mm, but I need something a bit more versatile as one minute they are practically a foot from my face and the next they're at the far end of the octagon. Also boxing rarely ends up rolling about on the floor so is more predictable IMO.
The 24-120 isn't overly heavy, just combined with the camera and holding it up to my face for hours on end.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm not a Nikon shooter and I haven't covered any of these events, but given that you have 2 bodies have you considered putting a shortish prime on one body and a longer prime on the other body? That would cut out the weight of your heavy zooms and still give you some versatility: if the action came close to you, use the body with the short prime; if the action moves further away, switch to the body with the longer prime. Also do you really need 9 fps: losing the grip would cut weight further and still give you 7 fps I think?

You would have to do more cropping in post-processing, but given the pixel count of your bodies that should be acceptable? Also to switch quickly from one body to the other you could use a harness-type strap such as the Blackrapid Double Breathe: http://www.blackrapid.com/Double-Breathe.

I cover a lot of running events and use the Blackrapid Hybrid Breathe (http://www.blackrapid.com/Hybrid-Breathe) with 2 Olympus bodies and (usually) the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 and the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8. This is a light and versatile setup, however given the ISO's you are likely shooting (I'm guessing 6400 and upwards) I think m4/3 may not be the most optimal choice for your situation so I wouldn't advocate it here.

If I wanted to cut the weight of my setup, I reckon I could cover a running event pretty effectively with a 17 f/1.8 prime (35mm full frame FOV) and a 75 f/1.8 prime (150mm full frame FOV) only, at the expense of more cropping in post. In your case the 85mm lens may be more suitable as the long prime. If you use Lightroom for post-processing you would be able to analyse which focal lengths you use most often, helping you to select which primes would be suitable.

So before spending any serious money, I would give this strategy a try and see if it improves things for you.
 
Primes i have are 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f1.8.
The D850 is FX, Full frame and the D500 DX, 1.5X crop.
50mm being the widest i have so it'd be on the D850 and allow DX crop also giving me the 50mm and 75mm.
The 85mm on the D500 would give me 127mm.
Looking through my shots I'd need a wider prime, such as a 24mm.

To be honest I've never thought of using any of the above for MMA.

In regards to the grip for the D850, I need the 9fps to try and get point of impact shots, a frame either way and you've lost it.
 
wilt said:
In regards to the grip for the D850, I need the 9fps to try and get point of impact shots, a frame either way and you've lost it.
Click to expand...
When I shot the boxing events I was using the D750 which is ‘only’ 6.5fps and I found that it was more of a case of learning how to predict when a punch would be thrown. I did try out the D500 once and I don’t recall getting any higher rate of ‘hit’ shots. That being said it’s not something I’ve done regularly and if I had the option of extra frame rate I’d probably use it, although for motorsport I’ve stopped using the higher frame rate on the D850 as I was sick of trawling through numerous shots that all looked the same :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
I was ringside shooting over the ropes, clear view in that regard.
Click to expand...

That is one nice advantage shooting boxing Vs MMA, if you can't get up to the ropes it's far easier shoot through them from lower down - with MMA you have a cage/mesh to contend with. Just looked it up, and as I imagined as I watch both a lot, in general an Octagon is a lot bigger than a boxing ring. The UFC octagons are almost twice the area of a pro level boxing ring. I imagine smaller local venue cages would be much smaller though
 
snerkler said:
When I shot the boxing events I was using the D750 which is ‘only’ 6.5fps and I found that it was more of a case of learning how to predict when a punch would be thrown. I did try out the D500 once and I don’t recall getting any higher rate of ‘hit’ shots. That being said it’s not something I’ve done regularly and if I had the option of extra frame rate I’d probably use it, although for motorsport I’ve stopped using the higher frame rate on the D850 as I was sick of trawling through numerous shots that all looked the same :LOL:
Click to expand...

I hate having to trawl through so many images myself as well, regardless of sport or subject, I'm trigger happy lol.
Boxing is more predictable, in that they only throw punches, with mma you're trying to predict a knee, elbow, kick, punch or even a spinning version of each as well as take downs.
If I had a D750 i'd just make do with the 6.5fps myself, but if you have the ability to get 9fps you'd be surprised that in a sequence of shots you can still miss it.
I've shot motorsport myself and there's very little variation in a sequence unless a crash happens, so i totally see that 3 shots of a car cornering would be virtually the same.
So much can happen in seconds in mma, on Saturday I seen a flurry of punches, a spinning elbow and a flying knee all within 5 seconds.
 
Cagey75 said:
That is one nice advantage shooting boxing Vs MMA, if you can't get up to the ropes it's far easier shoot through them from lower down - with MMA you have a cage/mesh to contend with. Just looked it up, and as I imagined as I watch both a lot, in general an Octagon is a lot bigger than a boxing ring. The UFC octagons are almost twice the area of a pro level boxing ring. I imagine smaller local venue cages would be much smaller though
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the exact size but when i enter it to take photos of the decision and winner it look's to be about 20 feet in diameter.
I try to shoot through the gaps in the cage but that's very limiting, so i use the f2.8 to try and blur out the wire, this works reasonably well but you can still get darkening where the wire is in shot and sometimes this dark line passes over a fighter making the shot pretty useless.
 
wilt said:
I hate having to trawl through so many images myself as well, regardless of sport or subject, I'm trigger happy lol.
Boxing is more predictable, in that they only throw punches, with mma you're trying to predict a knee, elbow, kick, punch or even a spinning version of each as well as take downs.
If I had a D750 i'd just make do with the 6.5fps myself, but if you have the ability to get 9fps you'd be surprised that in a sequence of shots you can still miss it.
I've shot motorsport myself and there's very little variation in a sequence unless a crash happens, so i totally see that 3 shots of a car cornering would be virtually the same.
So much can happen in seconds in mma, on Saturday I seen a flurry of punches, a spinning elbow and a flying knee all within 5 seconds.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you need 3 x D5's with a 24mm, 50mm and 85mm ;) I'd recommend the Sony A9 but with how back the lighting is I can imagine plenty of banding and WB issues using the electronic shutter ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top