Need help, potential system switcher

Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle

In Memoriam
Messages
12,654
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
On holiday at the monent and lugging a D750, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-85mm VR and associated tele convertors and filters and other bits and bobs is fast becoming a ball ache

Is there another system out there which will give me all the flexibilit of the above, very good IQ but none of the weight of the Nikon set up. it could even be another interchangeable lens set up

Would like 24mp, good high ISO capability, would probably be mainly used foe general stuff but i do like Landscape stuff and want to do more of it

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
If its FF and you want to use faster zooms its going to be heavy. As a camera the D750 is pretty light, its the lenses that are the 'big' issue as with most FF setups, even the smaller Sony A7 series.
 
Last edited:
Hi Gary. I have just purchased the Nikon 18-35 as a lightweight landscape lens which weighs a similar amount to the 35 and 85 primes.

As for the tele, are you set on needing f2.8? A 70-200 f4 would be a nice weight saving as would a 70-300.

Just my 2 penneth.
 
twist said:
If its FF and you want to use faster zooms its going to be heavy. As a camera the D750 is pretty light, its the lenses that are the 'big' issue as with most FF setups, even the smaller Sony A7 series.
Click to expand...
I might just sell the 70-200mm but its bloody lovely
 
minnnt said:
Hi Gary. I have just purchased the Nikon 18-35 as a lightweight landscape lens which weighs a similar amount to the 35 and 85 primes.

As for the tele, are you set on needing f2.8? A 70-200 f4 would be a nice weight saving as would a 70-300.

Just my 2 penneth.
Click to expand...
Im sort of OK with my 24-85mm for wide stuff, certainally the IQ is good enough, i hate the 70-300mm, IQ dropped off badly from about 250mm upwards

Damm the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8
 
MFT is surely the most developed and lens rich of the smaller systems. The new Panasonic GX8 will be the MFT camera with the highest resolution at 20mp and with an equivalent zoom lens will no doubt offer a bilk and weight saving over your Nikon. If you go for an APS-C set up from Fuji, Sony or Samsung you'll see a reduction in overall bulk and weight of the camera and lens as a package but none of these have the range of lenses that MFT offers. There are some very nice f2.8 MFT zooms if zooms is the way you want to go. The quality f2.8 zoom lenses aren't cheap but they may compare well on price with the better Nikon lenses. If you could convince yourself that 16mp is enough (the difference between 16 and 24mp may or may not matter to you...) there are cheaper body choices in MFT land.

As an opinion of MFT high ISO capability, I'd use my GX7 at any ISO up to and including 25,600 which IMVHO is ok for screen viewing and reasonably sized prints, if you do print.

The best option would be (like me :D) to have a Sony A7 for quality in a small form and MFT for when you want the most compact package :D
 
Last edited:
leica lenses are much lighter and are lovely, but there primes, m series camera bodies probably wont be much lighter than a 750
 
The main thing to keep in mind is that the bigger the sensor the bigger the lenses.

Do not get rid of your D750 or lenses till youve tried a CSC. I use a D750 as a main camera and the A6000 for days I cant be bothered, best of both worlds. Ive switched systems a lot and found best bet is both as no CSC can replace my DSLR.
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
Stick with what you have mate, if downsize/downgrade your regret it for sure, (unless you get a Leica ;) ) that D750 is a superb piece of kit along with that 70-200mm...
Click to expand...

Why would he regret everything except a Leica?
 
Joeturner11 said:
Stick with what you have mate, if downsize/downgrade your regret it for sure, (unless you get a Leica ;) ) that D750 is a superb piece of kit along with that 70-200mm...
Click to expand...
Love the 70-200mm Joe but do i really use it enough to warrant keeping it, i love the 16-35mm f/4 and just buy that when i need it and sell it on when i dont, ive owned about 5 of them in the last few years, so long as i dont lose out financially im happy to keep doing it that way, arrghhhh, decisions.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I might just sell the 70-200mm but its bloody lovely
Click to expand...
Noooooo, it's my favourite lens and hell would have to freeze over before I sold mine ;)

Can't you 'make do' with slightly less IQ for holiday stuff, after all aren't most hol pictures 'memory snaps'? I have the EM5-II with 12-40mm f2.8 for such purposes and IQ is excellent and more than acceptable for hols. I also have the 45mm f1.8 which is tiny and easily fits into a pocket, and both the 45-150 and 100-300mm for reach. Ok neither of these telephoto's are in the same league as the 70-200mm f2.8 but they're more than capable of good pics, weigh a hell of a lot less, and in the case of the 100-300mm a hell of a lot more reach as it's a 600mm eq. If you want subject isolation and nice bokeh that's where the 45mm f1.8 comes into play. Only trouble is it's 'only' 16mp. Sony A6000 is 24mp though iirc.

I agree with Twist that no CSC can compare with a FF DSLR as a complete camera so for now it means having both and having the best of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
70-200 f4 is half the weight I think, and I've heard takes a 1.4x TC very well
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Love the 70-200mm Joe but do i really use it enough to warrant keeping it, i love the 16-35mm f/4 and just buy that when i need it and sell it on when i dont, ive owned about 5 of them in the last few years, so long as i dont lose out financially im happy to keep doing it that way, arrghhhh, decisions.
Click to expand...

If I was in your situation pal, sit down and think about it, don't do anything till your 110% sure...
 
Shameless plug for my a6000 setup in the for sale section. Only selling as I am heading over to the Fuji camp. But they don't do 24mp
 
simonblue said:
Just one of those things,if you want FF and good lens the weight going to be their :(
Click to expand...

These days that's not exactly true. If you want FF and great quality primes you can have a small A7 series camera and a lovely prime but if you want longer lenses and/or zooms the bulk and weight will rise but still almost certainly not match that of a FF DSLR and large lens.
 
woof woof said:
These days that's not exactly true. If you want FF and great quality primes you can have a small A7 series camera and a lovely prime but if you want longer lenses and/or zooms the bulk and weight will rise but still almost certainly not match that of a FF DSLR and large lens.
Click to expand...

Yep Sony will give you FF with an smaller body :)
 
woof woof said:
These days that's not exactly true. If you want FF and great quality primes you can have a small A7 series camera and a lovely prime but if you want longer lenses and/or zooms the bulk and weight will rise but still almost certainly not match that of a FF DSLR and large lens.
Click to expand...

less size on the body, but lens wise most arent significantly different...

something diddy like a rx100 would tempt me

thing is, fast high quality lenses are that size for a reason, and theres only a few that are small light fast and decent

guess maybe the e mount ultrawide (crop one), voightlander 40mm 1.4 or leica f2

70 200 replacement, either a 135 or 128mm old prime ?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Christ those Sony e fit lenses are expensive
Click to expand...

E mount (APSC) aint to bad, FE mount (FF) are expensive, its what a lot of people keep saying, they arent small either (being FF lenses), anyone who says they are much smaller than DSLR FF lenses is speaking nonsense.
 
Fuji? OK, a little below your wanted (or is it a need?) MP count but print well up to A3+, even using JPEGs SOOC. Lenses aren't cheap but quality rarely is! X-T1 and 18-135 covers 90% of my wants and is a hell of a lot lighter than the D750 with the (fairly comparable) 24-120 f/4 fitted.
 
Did just the same a few years back. Rather than dragging a D800, 24-120 f4 and 80-200 AF-S f2.8 around everywhere I got myself a Nex 6 and some half decent lenses. It's much nicer to drag around on holiday, although having got an RX100 since even that is often being left behind.
 
To really save size and weight, you have to drop both format size and maximum aperture, and/or swap to primes.

TBH, mirrorless is optional. Both Nikon and Canon make some very light and compact crop-sensor DSLRs. Good cameras too.
 
HoppyUK said:
To really save size and weight, you have to drop both format size and maximum aperture, and/or swap to primes.

TBH, mirrorless is optional. Both Nikon and Canon make some very light and compact crop-sensor DSLRs. Good cameras too.
Click to expand...
Got to say a friend brought their D3200 round the other day and I was amazed just how small and lightweight it was.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmmm, thinking of keeping my Nikon DSLR gear for now except for the 70-200mmg but supplementing it with a Nikon 1 V3 and the 70-300mm for the telephoto and 6.7-13mm for the wide stuff

As i rarely now shoot any low light high ISO stuff i dont need the fast 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top