Nikon vs OM systems saving weight? Not always.

[myotis]

This is a bit of public brainstorming, on me trying to reduce the weight of a long lens/wildlife option in my camera bag.

It isn't an invitation to start a Nikon vs OM war, and if you compare an M43 bag of camera kit with a Nikon bag of camera kit, then M43 clearly wins in terms of weight and size.. Having said that, while looking at sizes and weights, the M43 benefits can depend on what "exactly" you compare.

And, obviously you need to look at the overall capabilities of each system there are lots of other reasons, beyond weight and size, for preferring one over the other, including cost.

However, my plan to add a 300mm f4 to my EM1.3 to replace my D500 with 300mm + 1.4TC combination, primarily to save weight, and to a lesser extent bulk, has floundered.

The D500 combo gives me an equivalent focal length of 630mm at f5.6 and the EM1.3 with the 300mm would be the equivalent focal length of a 600mm at f4. In theory the APS sensor in the d500 should balance out this difference in maximum aperture and give both options the same light gathering capability, by increasing the ISO with the D500.

The D500+300mm+1.4TC+ tripod collar + lenshood weighs 2031g (In fact my setup is a few grams heavier as I have the Kirk tripod collar)

The EM1.3+300mm f4 + tripod collar + built in lenshood (which I have assumed is included in the lens weight) is 2055g. An OM1 adds a few grams to this weight
So the Nikon option is slightly lighter than the OM option, or near enough the same to make no practical difference.

The D500 is obviously a lot bigger than the EM1.3, but the nikon 300mm+1.4TC is a few millimetres narrower and over 30mm shorter than the OM 300mm f4.

Looking at Nikon mirrorless and using the APS. crop on a Z8, to give a 600mm equivalent fom the 400mm f4.5 Z mount lens, brings the Nikon weight up to 2287g, However, going with a Nikon Z7 mk III (once available and assuming it follows the lead of the Zf and Z6 III in terms of improved AF for birds) it should be possible to knock around 200g from this and bring the total weight down to around 2.1kg. The 400mm Nikon lens, although lighter is around 10mm longer and wider than the OM 300mm. Not that I can afford this option, but I thought it useful to compare them as potential longer term options.

So, for this specific use, the weights of a Nikon DSLR, Nikon Mirrorless and M43 mirrorless are all remarkably close to 2.1kg regardless of system, not what I had expected.

An OM1 body and Z6/Z7 body are similar in size ( the Nikons are about 10mm taller but a few millimetres shorter and less deep, the Z6III and Z7 III are going to be slightly bigger the current Z6II and Z7) The D500 and Z8 are substantially bigger than the EM1.3/OM1.

Of course, using only weight and a single lens/body combination comparison isn't, normally, a good way to compare systems, But, in this instance, as the urgent driver was to save weight, and to a lesser extent bulk., this has been a useful exercise to answer a specific question. I'm a lot more content to stick with D500/300mm+14TC for a while longer, than I was yesterday

The EM1.3 with the 12-200 will continue as my EDC. For which, it's hard to come up with anything better.

 

[woof woof]

Yup.

You have to look at specific camera and lens combinations that would work for you. As a general rule I'd say it's possible to more easily put together a MFT combination that's smaller than any FF or APS-C system but things can get more complicated when you look at some of the smaller body and lens combinations such as the Sony A6xxx series and even the FF A7c range.

 

[sk66]

For me, size and weight don't play a big part; it really probably should as I have fused vertebrae, nerve damage, and muscular atrophy (left arm/pec). I just look at is as being more/better exercise... finding a way to comfortably carry it a couple miles up/down the side of a mountain is an issue though.

The part I think you left out in your comparison is the other capabilities; things like effectiveness/availability of subject recognition/tracking, frames per second, exposure preview in the viewfinder, etc, etc. But as always, if what you are buying isn't solving a specific problem you are having, then it probably is not money well spent. I.e. if purchasing new there are some compelling reasons you might choose a more modern 4/3 mirrorless solution over an older DSLR solution; but in this specific case maybe not so much.

 

[myotis]

Yup.

You have to look at specific camera and lens combinations that would work for you. As a general rule I'd say it's possible to more easily put together a MFT combination that's smaller than any FF or APS-C system but things can get more complicated when you look at some of the smaller body and lens combinations such as the Sony A6xxx series and even the FF A7c range.

It does depend a lot on what you compare both with individual items and at the "bag of kit" level . Small savings per item which may not matter if you only ever carry a single body and lens, can become important if you are carrying three bodies and five lenses.

 

[woof woof]

It does depend a lot on what you compare both with individual items and at the "bag of kit" level . Small savings per item which may not matter if you only ever carry a single body and lens, can become important if you are carrying three bodies and five lenses.

I prefer a small camera and lens combination and I'm lucky in that I prefer lenses in the 28-50mm range as these can be both small and light making my preference more achievable.

 

[GreenNinja67]

I went back to Olympus primarily for the cost saving.

You can get really sharp lenses for comparatively little money.

The physical size of the gear appealed too.

So then I bought an EM1X pro body which isn't the lightest.

Along with my 12-40 f2.8 PRO and 7-14 f2.8 PRO lenses I have a relatively heavy set of gear which is (mainly) physically smaller than a FF setup.

Hey ho, it suits me fine.

With decent light I can't really tell the difference between FF & M4/3s (well I can but not enough to worry about).


And now we have such good DeNoise software I don't myself missing FF at all.

 

[myotis]

For me, size and weight don't play a big part; it really probably should as I have fused vertebrae, nerve damage, and muscular atrophy (left arm/pec). I just look at is as being more/better exercise... finding a way to comfortably carry it a couple miles up/down the side of a mountain is an issue though.

The part I think you left out in your comparison is the other capabilities; things like effectiveness/availability of subject recognition/tracking, frames per second, exposure preview in the viewfinder, etc, etc. But as always, if what you are buying isn't solving a specific problem you are having, then it probably is not money well spent. I.e. if purchasing new there are some compelling reasons you might choose a more modern 4/3 mirrorless solution over an older DSLR solution; but in this specific case maybe not so much.

I agree, that if you comparing systems before buying into one this is important and I wrote

"...obviously you need to look at the overall capabilities of each system there are lots of other reasons, beyond weight and size, for preferring one over the other, including cost."

But I deliberately missed out discussing these things because I was only discussing weight and bulk, where the differences may not turn out exactly as expected..

I've become more concerned about weight and bulk recently, and whereas once upon a time, it would barely influence my equipment decisions, it's something I now feel forced to consider.

 

[myotis]

I prefer a small camera and lens combination and I'm lucky in that I prefer lenses in the 28-50mm range as these can be both small and light making my preference more achievable.

If all your photography can be done within say a 24-100 range of focal lengths there are a lot of options available, even the "not so small" choices can still be pretty small and lightweight. It's once you get an interest in wildlife, and need long, preferably fast, lenses that size, weight and cost become an issue.

 

[myotis]

I went back to Olympus primarily for the cost saving.

You can get really sharp lenses for comparatively little money.

The physical size of the gear appealed too.

So then I bought an EM1X pro body which isn't the lightest.

Along with my 12-40 f2.8 PRO and 7-14 f2.8 PRO lenses I have a relatively heavy set of gear which is (mainly) physically smaller than a FF setup.

Hey ho, it suits me fine.

With decent light I can't really tell the difference between FF & M4/3s (well I can but not enough to worry about).


And now we have such good DeNoise software I don't myself missing FF at all.

I deliberately avoided discussing costs, but it's an important factor in favour of M43.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Does 150g make that much of the difference?! Are price and IQ not far far more important? Obviously not

 

[GreenNinja67]

Does 150g make that much of the difference?! Are price and IQ not far far more important? Obviously not

What's wrong with the IQ on a well exposed image from a M4/3s body with a good lens?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

What's wrong with the IQ on a well exposed image from a M4/3s body with a good lens?

nothing really other than you are limited to 20MP sensor and your ability to crop or print very large.

What I mean is you have to evaluate important metrics and not irrelevant number which seems to be trending like crazy.

 

[Sangoma]

nothing really other than you are limited to 20MP sensor and your ability to crop or print very large.

Maybe the extra reach and the stabilisation and the ease of use etc etc will give a better image anyway

What's right for one person isn't always right for another.
I would get more keepers from the M43 system than I would from what an "expert" might decide is the right thing for me, and I will have money for food afterwards.

It does what I want for things far away and moving, and the 5D does what I want for things closer and not moving so much.

I would expect others to feel differently, because their needs, circumstances aims and ambitions are different.

 

[myotis]

Does 150g make that much of the difference?! Are price and IQ not far far more important? Obviously not

That depends on circumstances, In some circumstances e.g. backpacking through the highlands or restrictions because of illness or old age etc, it could well be the crucial consideration.

However, I'm not sure anyone has suggested it's "more" important than cost or IQ. Indeed in my OP I pointed out that it shouldn't be the thing that decided which system you bought into, But the post wasn't about choosing a camera system, it was a reflection on discovering that for the very specific use case I discussed weight was largely irrelevant, regardless of sensor size.

Although, I still by far prefer FF, I also, obviously, use APS and M43, and feel that all of them are capable of good quality, so in some respects IQ is almost a given now a days, allowing someone to choose between systems based on cost and features including weight and bulk, assuming if these are important to your particular circumstances.

 

[the black fox]

You have forgotten one or Two very important things in this
the first being a olympus mc14 tc which then gives a native 420mm reach or 840mm in FF terms
also I.b.i.s at around 6to 7 stops enabling hand holding
if you decide to enable 2x digital t.c as well you get a full sized jpg at 1680 mm hand held at f5.6
olympus lenses in general are that sharp you dont need to stop down ,not sure re Nikon .
the Olympus 300mm and t.c are weather sealed so no covers needed , no extra bags ,other lenses can be in pocket if required .
and finally I.b.is is that good you have no need for tripods ,monopods ,etc

 

[Deleted member 95430]

I look at it like I look at my bike. Better for me to lose a kg than my camera

 

[myotis]

You have forgotten one or Two very important things in this
the first being a olympus mc14 tc which then gives a native 420mm reach or 840mm in FF terms
also I.b.i.s at around 6to 7 stops enabling hand holding
if you decide to enable 2x digital t.c as well you get a full sized jpg at 1680 mm hand held at f5.6
olympus lenses in general are that sharp you dont need to stop down ,not sure re Nikon .
the Olympus 300mm and t.c are weather sealed so no covers needed , no extra bags ,other lenses can be in pocket if required .
and finally I.b.is is that good you have no need for tripods ,monopods ,etc

Nope, I haven't forgotten any of those things, I am well aware of all the points you make, and they were all , as well as many others, were included in the statement

"...obviously you need to look at the overall capabilities of each system there are lots of other reasons, beyond weight and size, for preferring one over the other, including cost."

I did try to make it clear that this was purely a very narrow comparison of weight and to a lesser extent bulk. Indeed, when writing the post, I did wander into mentioning things beyond that narrow focus(including some you, and SK66, have mentioned) but deleted them, as I didn't want to give the impression of trying to give any sort of detailed comparison.

Having said that, I possibly made a mistake not referring to the 1.4TC on the Olympus 300mm, as for small increase in weight and bulk it does add considerably to the versatility of the OM set up. But my mind was tightly focused on my decision to look at buying a 300mm olympus lens for my EM1.3 to save weight over my current Nikon D500 set up, only to discover it would actually add weight. Albeit a tiny amount,

There are of course lots of other reasons why an OM (especially an OM1) with the 300mm would be a better birding option over my D500, but that is a different discussion.

 

[mazdaman]

Always found this guys take on M43 a reasonable view point with camera systems its a case of each to there own

I moved to m43 several years ago and it suits me

Three Cheers for Micro Four Thirds — James Rodkey

I’ve been shooting micro four thirds cameras for almost a decade. In this post I explain the benefits and drawbacks of the system and suggest that many more photographers should make the switch from full frame to MFT cameras.

www.jamesrodkey.com

 

[woof woof]

If all your photography can be done within say a 24-100 range of focal lengths there are a lot of options available, even the "not so small" choices can still be pretty small and lightweight. It's once you get an interest in wildlife, and need long, preferably fast, lenses that size, weight and cost become an issue.

Even in my preferred focal length range that are quite significant to me variations in bulk. For example my Panasonic GX80 and 14mm f2.5 or 17 or 25mm f1.8 is significantly smaller than my Sony A7 with even the tiny Sony 35mm f2.8. However some lens choices make the comparisons more difficult, for example my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is bigger than my Sony 28-60mm f3.5-5.6 and although the Panasonic is f2.8 once you start stopping down or pixel peeping image quality the FF setup may well have an edge.

 

[myotis]

Even in my preferred focal length range that are quite significant to me variations in bulk. For example my Panasonic GX80 and 14mm f2.5 or 17 or 25mm f1.8 is significantly smaller than my Sony A7 with even the tiny Sony 35mm f2.8. However some lens choices make the comparisons more difficult, for example my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is bigger than my Sony 28-60mm f3.5-5.6 and although the Panasonic is f2.8 once you start stopping down or pixel peeping image quality the FF setup may well have an edge.

Unless you start looking at things like Nikon 50mm f1.2 Nocts, you have a fair bit of flexibility of choice , regardless of sensor size, while still keep what you actually carry within a reasonable weight. and bulk, even if there can be some variability in what that weight might be.

This is less the case once you get into long lenses and try to make direct comparisons. e.g if I had compared the size and weight of the oly 300mm vs a 600mm Nikon (instead of what was relevant to my personal decision) the difference in favour of the OM choice would be near to 2kg, and if you add the only logical Nikon camera body to that lens, it's probably going to be a 3kg advantage for the OM.

I am imagining that you will probably end up with your entire camera bag for a day out coming in at less than the difference between these two lens options regardless of which camera/lens combinations you choose. This is the great flexibility of using lenses in the 24-100mm range. Even though my own lenses in this range are heavy and bulky: but they don't need to be.

 

[snerkler]

Having health issues myself I'm always fighting the battle of the weight of camera equipment, and is the main reason I had the Olympus system. I still love the Olympus system but the weight saving is very little (often less than 10%) over my FF mirrorless system and as a result there was no point keeping the Olympus stuff.

I think these days we need to be wary about automatically assuming m4/3 is going to provide a size and weight saving, especially a significant one, however it will of course depend on the individual and what lenses etc are being compared.

 

[myotis]

Having health issues myself I'm always fighting the battle of the weight of camera equipment, and is the main reason I had the Olympus system. I still love the Olympus system but as the weight saving is very little (often less than 10%) over my FF mirrorless system and as a result there was no point keeping the Olympus stuff.

I think these days we need to be wary about automatically assuming m4/3 is going to provide a size and weight saving, especially a significant one, however it will of course depend on the individual and what lenses etc are being compared.

Yes, this reflects part of the reason for my post, because although, you can still put together a very light and small M43 system, it's not necessarily the big advantage it once was.

There are however, other reasons beyond weight and size for choosing M43.

 

[snerkler]

Yes, this reflects part of the reason for my post, because although, you can still put together a very light and small M43 system, it's not necessarily the big advantage it once was.

There are however, other reasons beyond weight and size for choosing M43.

There are, however these advantages are again not as big as they were in terms of IBIS and weather sealing. Cost advantage will of course depend on what you're comparing.