Help! Downsizing opinions please?

J13ERO

J13ERO

Messages
90
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
I would like some help from you fine folks,

Currently own a D800 and I love it however it's a big heavy brute and I would like something a bit smaller and lighter.

I would like some thoughts on what to go for next? Needs to be FF!

My initial thought was maybe a D750 although it's not that much smaller or lighter!
Or go completely crazy and go for an A7ii which would also mean changing lenses which I'm not averse to!
(Never really liked Canons)

Let me know your thoughts please [emoji2] thanks, James
 
A7 with zeiss optics! Or get a converter and keep nikon lenses
 
You're only going to save weight on the camera body as full-frame lenses aren't going to differ much in weight for a given spec. What about the D610?
 
Snapsh0t said:
You're only going to save weight on the camera body as full-frame lenses aren't going to differ much in weight for a given spec. What about the D610?
Click to expand...

It's not something I had considered to be honest but I will have a look into it, how does it compare to the 750 do you know?
 
Snapsh0t said:
You're only going to save weight on the camera body as full-frame lenses aren't going to differ much in weight for a given spec. What about the D610?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it.

A D750 with something like a 24-70 on it is still quite weighty. Put a 24-85 on it and you'll feel the difference.
 
Besides the savings in bulk and weight with a CSC you should IMO also think about the pros and possibly cons if you can see any :D of EVF shooting. Personally I love the in view histogram, DoF, WYSIWYG, magnified view, peaking etc and I'd hate to go back to an OVF camera now plus there's the joy of using old film era manual lenses :D But that's me, you may for some bizarre reason prefer a conventional OVF equipped DSLR :D
 
UKmitch86 said:
Not sure what the general opinion is on this guy, but makes a reasoned argument.
Click to expand...

That vid is a lot of fun and I do agree with him, mostly :D but it's hard to stop pixel peeping and looking for minute differences that just may be there if we look hard enough.

If anyone can resist pixel peeping and especially for anyone shooting at low to high ISO rather than stratospheric ISO I'd say that anything from MFT and upwards and possibly smaller than MFT too is perfectly good enough much or most of the time. For example I have a couple of MFT cameras and the output is simply outstanding compared to anything I got from film or my early Canon DSLR's and very probably better than my 5D. The best camera I've ever owned is however my Sony A7 :D
 
woof woof said:
Besides the savings in bulk and weight with a CSC you should IMO also think about the pros and possibly cons if you can see any :D of EVF shooting. Personally I love the in view histogram, DoF, WYSIWYG, magnified view, peaking etc and I'd hate to go back to an OVF camera now plus there's the joy of using old film era manual lenses :D But that's me, you may for some bizarre reason prefer a conventional OVF equipped DSLR :D
Click to expand...

I like the way the mirrorless focus is live on the sensor, meaning that you don't have to micro adjust lenses anymore. The focus is the focus and with the newer phase detection points built right in, the accuracy and speed is really up there too now.
 
The main thing is what do you shoot and what type of lenses do you shoot with?

If currently you use zooms then your not that likely to see massive savings in size and weight by switching to Sony, yes the Body is smaller but the fast zooms are as big as those on Full Frame DSLR.

If you shoot primes then these do tend to be smaller (maybe aside from the Sony Distagon 35mm f1.4!) but then the Nikon "G" primes (20/24/35/50/85) and a D750 would be a nice compromise.

Also depends what you shoot, do you need fast AF for wildlife or sport? I'm guessing not as a former D800 owner myself I know its not the speediest to AF.

I've been through this journey and choice a few times and ultimately always come back to DSLR although I will grant you the D800 is a fair heft of kit! I've gone down the Pentax route and their D810 equivalent K1 is a bit smaller and with their primes is a fairly compact kit, I'd have achieved roughly the same size, etc with a D750 and primes.

The full-frame requirement is a tough one and is the main reason I've remained with the DSLR as I personally don't feel that the Sony line is quite there yet for my use and the A7rii is really quite expensive v the similar DSLR equivalents (D810/K1).
 
chrism_scotland said:
The main thing is what do you shoot and what type of lenses do you shoot with?

If currently you use zooms then your not that likely to see massive savings in size and weight by switching to Sony, yes the Body is smaller but the fast zooms are as big as those on Full Frame DSLR.
Click to expand...

I primarily shoot landscapes but I also do some street/urbex photography which is where a nice size and weight is better for sticking in a bag. I have never shot any sports or wildlife so haven't really had to worry about speeds.
I've done some paid work for a fitness company and catering company which was more product/food shot and some portraiture.
 
Thanks everyone else for their replies so far!

If I went down the Sony route, what would I be losing out on over a DSLR?
It may sound a little naive [emoji37]
 
I switched from Canon 50D to Sony A7 and don't regret.

The only thing I'm missing is fast AF - at least A7II is nowhere near it (in low light that is, in good light it's only marginally worse). A7RII is supposed to better, but I have not tried it personally.

As for the size/weight/bulkiness: I take my A7II + 35/2.8 (or 55/1.8 depending on the mood) everywhere. 50D used to be left behind most of the time because of sheer bulk of it even with relatively compact Sigma 30/1.4, which was my favorite combination.

This year I took it along with 35/2.8 to my skiing trip and it was fantastic. It was sitting in my skiing jacket pocket ready to take stunning pictures - something I would never even dream of with 50D.
 
Last edited:
J13ERO said:
Thanks everyone else for their replies so far!

If I went down the Sony route, what would I be losing out on over a DSLR?
It may sound a little naive [emoji37]
Click to expand...

I'd guess tracking ability but it doesn't sound like you need that, some whinge about battery life but I've never flattened two, some complain about EVF blackout between shots but that may not be an issue.

I think that the A7rII is on the expensive side but depending upon your view 6mp may be enough for a nice A3 print so the 24mp of the arguably cheap A7/A7II may be ample.

On lenses, I'm a prime guy and have the 55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8 both of which are small and IMO and that of many reviewers optically outstanding and maybe even SOTA as I believe are some of the other primes and there's the option of using old film era lenses.
 
gunnar said:
I switched from Canon 50D to Sony A7 and don't regret.

The only thing I'm missing is fast AF - at least A7II is nowhere near it (in low light that is, in good light it's only marginally worse). A7RII is supposed to better, but I have not tried it
Click to expand...

This is a big thing for me that you've just mentioned!! I get around a lot with work in the Peak District and never have my camera with me due to having to have a separate camera bag to keep it in and people might start asking questions when I'm supposed to be working [emoji6] I also have the same issue for skiing as you mentioned.
 
D750 and D610 are almost the same is size and weight. I think the main issue you have is lenses. Quality fast glass is big and heavy and if you love zoom lenses then that will make it even worse. As mentioned above, try primes or maybe cropped sensor systems
 
woof woof said:
I'd guess tracking ability but it doesn't sound like you need that, some whinge about battery life but I've never flattened two, some complain about EVF blackout between shots but that may not be an issue.

I think that the A7rII is on the expensive side but depending upon your view 6mp may be enough for a nice A3 print so the 24mp of the arguably cheap A7/A7II may be ample.
Click to expand...

Tracking isn't anything I've ever used so far so I'm sure I'd be able to live without it! Battery issue... there isn't one really, just put another battery in haha it's not like they're a brick!

I would like to be able to print large photos but when I say large I'm thinking maybe A1 at most not billboard sizes.
 
architectfadi said:
D750 and D610 are almost the same is size and weight. I think the main issue you have is lenses. Quality fast glass is big and heavy and if you love zoom lenses then that will make it even worse. As mentioned above, try primes or maybe cropped sensor systems
Click to expand...

Certainly not averse to trying out some primes! I have a nifty 50 and love it on my Nikon
 
J13ERO said:
Tracking isn't anything I've ever used so far so I'm sure I'd be able to live without it! Battery issue... there isn't one really, just put another battery in haha it's not like they're a brick!

I would like to be able to print large photos but when I say large I'm thinking maybe A1 at most not billboard sizes.
Click to expand...

The biggest I've ever printed is A3 and for me even my old Canon 300D which I think was 6mp was good enough but I suppose it depends on what you'll accept and how close you want to examine a print. Cropping and printing/viewing closely is another matter.
 
Has anyone with an A7ii noticed a difference in image quality between a D800/750/610 etc?
 
D750 if you want to stay with Nikon and FF. I chopped my D800 in against a small Fuji system and now run that alongside the D750 based Nikon system since there are still a couple of things that I find easier/better with a "proper" OVF rather than the Fujis' EVFs.
 
J13ERO said:
Has anyone with an A7ii noticed a difference in image quality between a D800/750/610 etc?
Click to expand...

I've used all of those and you will notice a difference from the D800 but its not huge, personally I think for most things the D750 probably tops the IQ all round unless you really need 36mp.
But its the same sensor in all 3 (A7ii,D750 and D610), the thing the D750 does better than both other is low light, I found that it had a more usable higher ISO than the A7ii, not sure exactly what Sony do but Nikon seem to get the best out of their sensors.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I've used all of those and you will notice a difference from the D800 but its not huge, personally I think for most things the D750 probably tops the IQ all round unless you really need 36mp.
But its the same sensor in all 3 (A7ii,D750 and D610), the thing the D750 does better than both other is low light, I found that it had a more usable higher ISO than the A7ii, not sure exactly what Sony do but Nikon seem to get the best out of their sensors.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't need 36mp at all! The low light is the only thing that concerned me about the A7 as I do occasionally like to shoot some night sky shots but I wouldn't be using massively high isos for it.
 
A Sony mirrorless with their lenses isn't that much smaller.

The body is but the lenses are just as big if not larger in a lot of cases. Plus they are just as if more more expensive.
 
Raymond Lin said:
A Sony mirrorless with their lenses isn't that much smaller.

The body is but the lenses are just as big if not larger in a lot of cases. Plus they are just as if more more expensive.
Click to expand...

IMG_1490721688.471665.jpg

There's a good size difference between the D800 I'm using now and an A7ii. Granted the D750 isn't much smaller though
 
J13ERO said:
View attachment 98778

There's a good size difference between the D800 I'm using now and an A7ii. Granted the D750 isn't much smaller though
Click to expand...

With the right lenses, it can be very small, but some like for like ish lenses, it can be even bigger!

h080o9q.png


q3xcnUP.png


LYN2Exc.png
 
Last edited:
From our conversation,
The likely lenses we considered you using 16-35mm / 24-70mm / Maybe a 50/55mm prime. The weight, and size will be more portable.
If you want an 85mm G Master lens then yes it will be heavy and not much different.
General use with replacing the lenses you currently have, with a Sony or Zeiss set up will be lighter and smaller
 
Raymond Lin said:
With the right lenses, it can be very small, but some like for like ish lenses, it can be even bigger!...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, looks like you're picking lenses to prove a point and I think that's better done with the lenses you/whoever is interested in buying with hard earned. For example your first comparison of DSLR with 85mm f1.2 would possibly be better if comparing the DSLR with Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art to A7 with 85mm f1.4 GM...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.516,290.611,ha,t



I think the OP should be left to make these comparisons with the lenses he'd buy.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Hmmm, looks like you're picking lenses to prove a point and I think that's better done with the lenses you/whoever is interested in buying with hard earned. For example your first comparison of DSLR with 85mm f1.2 would possibly be better if comparing the DSLR with Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art to A7 with 85mm f1.4 GM...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.516,290.611,ha,t
Click to expand...

You could also pick lenses to prove YOUR point.

My point is "it can be small, and it can be bigger", which is exactly what I said. I never claimed every single lenses are smaller but downsizing the body and think you are automatically getting a smaller set up could surprise you.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You could also pick lenses to prove YOUR point.

My point is "it can be small, and it can be bigger", which is exactly what I said. I never claimed every single lenses are smaller but downsizing the body and think you are automatically getting a smaller set up could surprise you.
Click to expand...

But I didn't pick lenses just to prove a point. I picked lenses that I thought were a fair comparison (but actually I don't think that the Canon 50mm f1.8 is a competitor to the Sony 55mm f1.8 quality wise as I suspect that the Sony is better) and at least in your first choice I don't think you did.

Anyway as I said... this is best left to the OP as he knows what lenses he's interested in.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
You could also pick lenses to prove YOUR point.

My point is "it can be small, and it can be bigger", which is exactly what I said. I never claimed every single lenses are smaller but downsizing the body and think you are automatically getting a smaller set up could surprise you.
Click to expand...

But the underlying point here is the OP uses a 24-70mm so a side by side comparison of that is this
IMG_1490732670.184203.jpg

He also uses a 50mm Prime which looks like this
IMG_1490733029.058430.jpg
 
woof woof said:
But I didn't pick lenses just to prove a point. I picked lenses that I thought were a fair comparison (but actually I don't think that the Canon 50mm f1.8 is a competitor to the Sony 55mm f1.8 quality wise as I suspect that the Sony is better) and at least in your first choice I don't think you did.

Anyway as I said... this is best left to the OP as he knows what lenses he's interested in.
Click to expand...

Thank you woof woof!
I certainly won't be buying into the likes of the mega expensive portrait type lenses such as the 85mm etc
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Nope, not a true comparison as you're comparing the Sony F4 lens with the Nikon f2.8. Here's the true comparison of the 24-70 f2.8's

View attachment 98788
Click to expand...

I based it on the Sonys in Body IS claiming it works to the equivalent of 2 stops, meaning the F4 is Stabilised. I've used both the Nikon D800 and the 24/70 2.8, a Canon 6D 24/70 2.8 and the Sony A7II 24/70 F4.
The real work differences isn't a great deal and images handheld on the Sony are just as good at F4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top