Lighter alternative to dslr

M

mercurius

Messages
997
Edit My Images
Yes
I am getting to the stage of life where I’m finding it increasingly difficult to wrangle a Nikon D810 and it’s lenses. Last week I fractured my left thumb and fear that in the longer term I may have lost more strength to handle a hefty chunk of kit.

Has anyone else faced the same problem and what did you opt to do? I don’t want to sacrifice IQ in moving to mirrorless which seems like the obvious move.
 
mercurius said:
I am getting to the stage of life where I’m finding it increasingly difficult to wrangle a Nikon D810 and it’s lenses. Last week I fractured my left thumb and fear that in the longer term I may have lost more strength to handle a hefty chunk of kit.

Has anyone else faced the same problem and what did you opt to do? I don’t want to sacrifice IQ in moving to mirrorless which seems like the obvious move.
Click to expand...

I faced the same issue of weight of equipment which came to a head when Covid hit and my wildlife photography came to a halt.
I got rid of all of my heavy kit and got a Nikon 1 V3 which served me really well but had limitations. More recently I got a couple of Olympus O-MD E-M10 Mk2 bodies and a selection of small lenses, 10mm, 12-45mm & 60mm. Weight issues have gone, IQ is fine and the kit does everything that I want it to do with my new genre of street/walkabout/general photography. :)
 
If you're thinking of going mirrorless you'll have the choice of Micro Four Thirds, APS-C and FF and newer cameras with newer sensors and processing generally improve on image quality so I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. Mirrorless also brings you the ability to focus accurately anywhere in the frame and the ability to see both the exposure and the DoF before you press the shutter button, and you get to see the 100% of the frame, there's no VF crop at all.
 
Your D810 has a 42MP sensor, and if you want to retain a similar image quality with less weight then a recent FX mirrorless body should do what you need while saving half a kilo or more.

Are you primarily a zoom or prime user? Mirrorless FX lenses tend not to be any lighter than DSLR, but primes from some of the other makers are often quite a bit lighter.
 
If you go FF you are not going to lose much of the weight as the lenses are big and heavy.
What do you shoot?
How much lighter does the set up need to be?
What about budget?

Compromises and some learning are likely to be needed.
 
Last edited:
You might get far more use from a high end compact and keep what you have for special photos.
You would get far more out of one than a typical user starting out in Auto mode.
 
Oly. Unless you need great low light performance.
 
mercurius said:
My ignorance!
Click to expand...
Without getting into a p1 ssing contest, there’s some incontrovertible facts we need to acknowledge.
  1. Bigger sensors are better.
  2. Newer sensors are better than older sensors

1 But fortunately you can get FF mirrorless cameras, unfortunately the weight reduction almost disappears if you’re reaching for the highest IQ (how good IQ do you really need).

2 So you could go down a sensor size (or more) without losing IQ, but the reality is…

until we have the answers to @ancient_mariner’s questions, we can’t offer the best advice.

People want FF for all kinds of reasons, for me it’s not high pixel counts, it’s the DoF control and low light performance.

BTW I haven’t bought my FF mirrorless yet, but I can tell you from my testing that it’s just superior tech compared to a DSLR, as @woof woof posted, the ability to focus anywhere in the frame and exp simulation are game changers. Although, back to usage, they’re virtually no use at all if your chosen field is flash in a studio environment shooting inanimate objects.
 
When I decided to go smaller and lighter I went with the first Sony A7R, since then the bodies got bigger so decided i was not going to upsize. Luckily Sony released the A7C which works perfectly for me, with the 35 f2.8 it will easily go in my jacket pocket.
 
Two years ago at the then age of 73 I faced exactly the same problem, after much time reading reviews etc I bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ2000 camera and I've never looked back... I love it! To be able to go out with just the camera knowing I always have the right lens is so nice, I like nature photography especially butterflies and the Panasonic fits the bill perfectly.
 
I use a Fuji X-A7 as a walk around camera, absolutely love it. No issues at all with image quality;)
 
gramps said:
I faced the same issue of weight of equipment which came to a head when Covid hit and my wildlife photography came to a halt.
I got rid of all of my heavy kit and got a Nikon 1 V3 which served me really well but had limitations. More recently I got a couple of Olympus O-MD E-M10 Mk2 bodies and a selection of small lenses, 10mm, 12-45mm & 60mm. Weight issues have gone, IQ is fine and the kit does everything that I want it to do with my new genre of street/walkabout/general photography. :)
Click to expand...

moggi1964 said:
I have both the Olympus EM10 MkII and EM1 MkII and find them very manageable and have no issue with IQ.
Click to expand...

Thanks both for these Olympus suggestions. Certainly seems to solve the weight issue!
 
If you are seriously looking at MFT don't forget Panasonic.

I've had a couple of mini SLR style Panasonic MFT cameras and now have the RF style GX80 and GX9, the GX80 is 16mp and the GX9 is 20mp. These RF style cameras don't have the SLR VF hump and therefore perhaps save a bit of bulk, plus some people do prefer the RF style layout with the VF in the corner rather than in a SLR style hump.

I don't know how MFT image quality will compare to a Nikon D810 but MFT is clearly better than my old Canon 5D and seems to be better than the 5DII which someone shot my wedding with plus these cameras when fitted with a fast operating lens focus just about instantaneously, anywhere in the frame with eye detect.

The GX9 is a nice camera and whilst the GX80 lacks some of the GX9's physical controls it does sometimes crops up at a good price.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Your D810 has a 42MP sensor, and if you want to retain a similar image quality with less weight then a recent FX mirrorless body should do what you need while saving half a kilo or more.

Are you primarily a zoom or prime user? Mirrorless FX lenses tend not to be any lighter than DSLR, but primes from some of the other makers are often quite a bit lighter.
Click to expand...
I mainly use zoom, occasionally a prime (105mm) for macro.
 
If you use fast glass there is very little in terms of weight saving Compared to mirrorless, however I did hold a friends Sony A7R4 with a Tamoron 28-75 f2.8 and compared to my 6D with 35-150 f2.8/4 it was very light so I guess that there are possibilities depending on your needs. My Fuji XT-30 with the 18-55 f2.8/4 is a very light combo but it’s not very easy to hold with large hands, an XT-3/4 might be better for a small increase in weight plus their primes are reasonably light.
 
I had to deal with this earlier this year and bought a Sony A6600. Firstly, the early ML cameras were not that good and seemed to earn a poor reputation among DSLR owners. However, ML is not inherently bad in fact it is an advantage as the distance between the sensor and lens rear element is much reduced which makes lens design easier. So ML lenses should be much cheaper for a similar performance. After research on performance, I found a ML camera FF with a performance better than my DSLR (Canon 5D4) BUT it was even heavier. I realised that to achieve a significant weight reduction, I would have to settle for half frame but could at least achieve about 1/3 the weight.

If directly comparing my 5D4 to the Sony, the 5D4 would win on most performance measurements and the touchscreen on the Canon is far better. However, it cannot be denied that the focussing performance of the Sony is excellent. My longest lens on my Canon was 200mm plus I had a 1.4x extender. With the 70-350mm lens on the Sony it has the reach of a 525mm on my Canon so excellent for wild life and sport. I do end up with a little more noise in some cases as the Canon was virtually noise free even at 1600 ISO but this no problem as Topaz DeNoise AI copes well with this. I have not got rid of the Canon kit and may well use again in studio situations where I will not need to carry it around. It is a compromise but I recall Joe Cornish saying he would ideally like to use a plate camera for all of his landscapes but it was just not practical. As time goes on, like me, you may find that lower weight creeps to the top of your specification list. I am doing just as well in competitions since I have changed and I think what we produce is generally not that dependent on specific equipment quality.

Dave
 
Mintchocs said:
If you use fast glass there is very little in terms of weight saving Compared to mirrorless, however I did hold a friends Sony A7R4 with a Tamoron 28-75 f2.8 and compared to my 6D with 35-150 f2.8/4 it was very light so I guess that there are possibilities depending on your needs. My Fuji XT-30 with the 18-55 f2.8/4 is a very light combo but it’s not very easy to hold with large hands, an XT-3/4 might be better for a small increase in weight plus their primes are reasonably light.
Click to expand...

I think you need to look at specifics rather than generalise like this. You also need to consider that some recent fast glass is simply outstanding whereas some fast glass of the DSLR age just isn't.
 
Dave Canon said:
I had to deal with this earlier this year and bought a Sony A6600. Firstly, the early ML cameras were not that good and seemed to earn a poor reputation among DSLR owners.
Click to expand...

I was in at almost the beginning with a Panasonic GF1. I didn't like back screen shooting so changed to a G1 which was a mini SLR design. Even though that camera was MFT it seriously challenged my FF Canon 5D in some situations so I can't really agree that early mirrorless cameras were not that good image quality wise. The focus systems of some may not have matched top tier DSLR's for action shooting but most people don't have top tier DSLR's and I'd guess that action shooting is a niche too. On the plus side DSLR focus is inherently problematic whereas mirrorless cameras determine focus on the sensor so there's no body/lens compatibility/MA to bother with. EVF's have also divided opinion and these have arguably improved quite a bit. I do prefer them to any RF/SLR/DSLR I've ever used.
 
I've been up and down, for medical/health/age reasons. Started on FF Canon, dropped to 4/3, then m4/3. Up to Fuji, then up again to Nikon Z. Down to Sony, and now finally settled on an Oly E-M1ii and Panny GX9. Bodies vary in weight according to format. Lenses don't so much, especially quality zooms. However, good primes are almost always lighter than the larger formats. IQ - what do you really need. I don't mean want. For me, IQ of the latest m4/3, coupled with advances in processing software, is more than good enough.
 
woof woof said:
I was in at almost the beginning with a Panasonic GF1. I didn't like back screen shooting so changed to a G1 which was a mini SLR design. Even though that camera was MFT it seriously challenged my FF Canon 5D in some situations so I can't really agree that early mirrorless cameras were not that good image quality wise. The focus systems of some may not have matched top tier DSLR's for action shooting but most people don't have top tier DSLR's and I'd guess that action shooting is a niche too. On the plus side DSLR focus is inherently problematic whereas mirrorless cameras determine focus on the sensor so there's no body/lens compatibility/MA to bother with. EVF's have also divided opinion and these have arguably improved quite a bit. I do prefer them to any RF/SLR/DSLR I've ever used.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
I went Olympus from a Nikon D7000 about 6 years back and woudn't go back, the size difference, the super sharp compact lenses are cracking, i don't shoot fast moving budgies or football players and its perfect for me. I have a few lenses for it and the 12-40 2.8 Pro is just brill, my fave however is the 17mm olympus prime.
 
Just another quick note on bulk and weight and some other stuff.

I recently bought a FF 24mm f2.8 and it seems to weigh next to nothing yet it also seems well made and the image quality seems outstanding save for barrel distortion which is corrected by a lens profile which loads with one ticked box. I also have a 35mm f2.8 which is slightly smaller and also weighs next to nothing. One final comment, the coatings on some modern lenses seem to employ Voodoo. That new 24mm f2.8 I've just received seems to be pretty much impervious to flare and ghosting.
 
alfbranch said:
If you go FF you are not going to lose much of the weight as the lenses are big and heavy.
What do you shoot?
How much lighter does the set up need to be?
What about budget?

Compromises and some learning are likely to be needed.
Click to expand...
Thanks that's a good point. Mainly I shoot landscapes, portraits, buildings and low light interiors, a bit of macro too.
It's got to be lighter than my current set-up (Nikon D810, 24-120mm zoom, 105mm macro) for me to be able to manage it with reduced hand strength.
Budget: max £2k
 
Phil V said:
Without getting into a p1 ssing contest, there’s some incontrovertible facts we need to acknowledge.
  1. Bigger sensors are better.
  2. Newer sensors are better than older sensors

1 But fortunately you can get FF mirrorless cameras, unfortunately the weight reduction almost disappears if you’re reaching for the highest IQ (how good IQ do you really need).

2 So you could go down a sensor size (or more) without losing IQ, but the reality is…

until we have the answers to @ancient_mariner’s questions, we can’t offer the best advice.

People want FF for all kinds of reasons, for me it’s not high pixel counts, it’s the DoF control and low light performance.

BTW I haven’t bought my FF mirrorless yet, but I can tell you from my testing that it’s just superior tech compared to a DSLR, as @woof woof posted, the ability to focus anywhere in the frame and exp simulation are game changers. Although, back to usage, they’re virtually no use at all if your chosen field is flash in a studio environment shooting inanimate objects.
Click to expand...
Thanks Phil V - all fair comments and questions. I've answered @ancient_mariner’s's questions so hope this gives a better steer.
 
robj20 said:
When I decided to go smaller and lighter I went with the first Sony A7R, since then the bodies got bigger so decided i was not going to upsize. Luckily Sony released the A7C which works perfectly for me, with the 35 f2.8 it will easily go in my jacket pocket.
Click to expand...
Yes, I like the idea of Sony and that's where I first started looking but quickly realised the ones I was looking at (eg A7R series) weren't any lighter than my current set-up.
John75 said:
Two years ago at the then age of 73 I faced exactly the same problem, after much time reading reviews etc I bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ2000 camera and I've never looked back... I love it! To be able to go out with just the camera knowing I always have the right lens is so nice, I like nature photography especially butterflies and the Panasonic fits the bill perfectly.
Click to expand...
I sympathise! I turn 70 in Jan 22. I assume it doesn't have interchangeable lenses?
Norkie said:
I use a Fuji X-A7 as a walk around camera, absolutely love it. No issues at all with image quality;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
It's interesting that you use a high resolution camera with a mid-quality zoom that will not make full use of the sensor. On this basis I suspect you would be happy with an APS-C camera body and be able to make use of the weight savings with no loss in image quality. Just pick your zoom carefully to get decent performance and I think you'll be happy, with the added benefit of smaller files and faster processing.
 
mercurius said:
Thanks Phil V - all fair comments and questions. I've answered @ancient_mariner’s's questions so hope this gives a better steer.
Click to expand...
What kind of quality zooms? How long? What do you shoot other than macro?

ignore as I saw your other post.

once again though I concur w @ancient_mariner youre not really getting the most from that lovely FF sensor, I’d suggest you could be happy with a smaller sensor and have a look at the Fuji offerings.
 
Last edited:
mercurius said:
Thanks that's a good point. Mainly I shoot landscapes, portraits, buildings and low light interiors, a bit of macro too.
It's got to be lighter than my current set-up (Nikon D810, 24-120mm zoom, 105mm macro) for me to be able to manage it with reduced hand strength.
Budget: max £2k
Click to expand...
I shoot macro and landscapes on Olympus m4/3
The image stabilisation is amazing and you can get away 1/5 sec (say at 12mm that is 24mm onthe Nikon) without any effort but it can extend to seconds needing lower ISO.
 
Have you considered a half way house option to build up to. Buy a z50 with ftz, thats 450g+135g= 585g v a d810 at 980g. Use your existing 24-120 and 105 macro. Thats 400g lighter, a little smaller and the menu system will be broadly familiar as a start

if you like it then keep going. If it’s still a little heavy then consider the z lens equivalents or look at a z16-50 / z50-250 for a much bigger weight reduction.

I suspect image quality might suffer a bit on the 16-50 and 50-250 but thats a huge focal range for what is 135/266g of lenses. Hand holding would then be 450+266g=716g for the longer with the other one in a pocket or bag compared to 980+710=1690g for the d810 and 24-120. Thats almost 1kg weight saving handheld. The macro would still be usable with the ftz And you’ve gone to effectively 150mm macro lens

its hard to buy a poor camera now. The main decisions are what are you giving up or balancing out against to get what you want.
 
After suffering heart failure about 30 months ago I came to the same conclusion re weight , I switched to Olympus and currently have a 1-mkiii + a 100-400 lens as my main walkabout rig ,BTW thats = to a 200-800 in FF terms due to 2x crop . The all up weight is just under 2kg …. You don’t even know it’s there . No more tripods or monopods due to superb i.s and as for I.q look in the bird section on here .
The other main advantage currently is also on price both cameras and lenses are well under other brands
 
Last edited:
Some years ago I switched from Nikon FF (D3 & D2x) to Fuji first X-Pro1 then X-T2 (for the weather sealing) I didn't see any reduction in IQ. Now my lightweight kit is this,

Three X-T2s.JPG

If I want to go lighter I drop a body and just take the 3rd lens but I don't make that decision readily because I hate changing lenses in the field. Thes 3 are my most used cameras but when I want that extra detail I pack my (heavy) Fuji GFX 50S kit.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
It's interesting that you use a high resolution camera with a mid-quality zoom that will not make full use of the sensor. On this basis I suspect you would be happy with an APS-C camera body and be able to make use of the weight savings with no loss in image quality. Just pick your zoom carefully to get decent performance and I think you'll be happy, with the added benefit of smaller files and faster processing.
Click to expand...
Think I need to go out and test some in the iron.
 
Jim_Tod said:
Have you considered a half way house option to build up to. Buy a z50 with ftz, thats 450g+135g= 585g v a d810 at 980g. Use your existing 24-120 and 105 macro. Thats 400g lighter, a little smaller and the menu system will be broadly familiar as a start

if you like it then keep going. If it’s still a little heavy then consider the z lens equivalents or look at a z16-50 / z50-250 for a much bigger weight reduction.

I suspect image quality might suffer a bit on the 16-50 and 50-250 but thats a huge focal range for what is 135/266g of lenses. Hand holding would then be 450+266g=716g for the longer with the other one in a pocket or bag compared to 980+710=1690g for the d810 and 24-120. Thats almost 1kg weight saving handheld. The macro would still be usable with the ftz And you’ve gone to effectively 150mm macro lens

its hard to buy a poor camera now. The main decisions are what are you giving up or balancing out against to get what you want.
Click to expand...
Some great ideas to explore here, Jim. Many thanks.
 
the black fox said:
After suffering heart failure about 30 months ago I came to the same conclusion re weight , I switched to Olympus and currently have a 1-mkiii + a 100-400 lens as my main walkabout rig ,BTW thats = to a 200-800 in FF terms due to 2x crop . The all up weight is just under 2kg …. You don’t even know it’s there . No more tripods or monopods due to superb i.s and as for I.q look in the bird section on here .
The other main advantage currently is also on price both cameras and lenses are well under other brands
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that and hope you are feeling loads better now.
The Olympus model you have seems to get a lot of support - will look into it.
 
I've had a quick scan over the thread and see no mention of the Sigma FP. It's a tiny, mirrorless, full frame camera. I've not had hands on experience of it but reviews seem very good.

What you want to do and the glass that suits that, might though be a different matter sizewise, a Sigma 150-600, even the C, isn't a small lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top