Several kg's ???? Not really
An example
Cameras
Canon 6d : 770g
Olympus M5 mk2 : 470g
Lens
Canon 24-70 F4 with IS : 600g
Olympus 12-40 F2.8 : 400g
So 500 grams difference for a similar focal length full frame setup with IS.
Selling gear and downsizing?
- Thread starter ChrisD.
- Start date
Several kg's ???? Not really
An example
Cameras
Canon 6d : 770g
Olympus M5 mk2 : 470g
Lens
Canon 24-70 F4 with IS : 600g
Olympus 12-40 F2.8 : 400g
So 500 grams difference for a similar focal length full frame setup with IS.
Managed to sell my 120-300mm now too
Also thinking about selling my 35mm sigma art still
I never use the mid range 20-70mm range at all
I'll probably keep my macro lens and wide and 70-200
For normal range I just use my galaxy s7edge. Its so so simple. I always have it, the lens kit is great.
I'm very disappointed really that I just my dslr so little
Also thinking about selling my 35mm sigma art still
I never use the mid range 20-70mm range at all
I'll probably keep my macro lens and wide and 70-200
For normal range I just use my galaxy s7edge. Its so so simple. I always have it, the lens kit is great.
I'm very disappointed really that I just my dslr so little
Agreed. Besides its grown men carrying another kilo at most. I think it's something people that have spent a small fortune on camera gear and lose interest do to justify their initial spend wasn't a waste, downsize and try to recoup some of the spend. I doubt in reality many find themselves taking many more pictures.
People go on like a dslr and lens is like yomping across the Falklands.
Buy a better bag.I can understand it with travelling the world where weight and space is the issue.
^^ Exactly
If convenience was a factor then I'd be picking the 100g smartphone which is worth the compromise for the massive weight saving.
Did you see my post above
Olympus quote the weight of the em5 mk2 with battery as 469g
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/e-m5-mark-ii.html
If convenience was a factor then I'd be picking the 100g smartphone which is worth the compromise for the massive weight saving.
Did you see my post above
Olympus quote the weight of the em5 mk2 with battery as 469g
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/e-m5-mark-ii.html
Last edited:
Most people who are serious about their photography will likely carry 2-3 lenses on a trip. Then, factor in all the accessories eg. batteries, perhaps a tripod, flash, backpack or messenger bag. For a smaller camera system, like m43, the weight saving on all these items does add up ... and in some cases the weight saving can be as much as a few kilograms. Out in the field on a long trip that can make a huge difference. Until you've experienced it don't knock it !
Caporegime
Come to whichever conclusion you wish. 
I'm speaking from my own experience. I'm not exactly adverse to carrying heavy weights around either, being my other main hobby is scuba diving!
Your weight comparison doesn't factor in many things.
People like to take several lenses out, not just one. So it's not just half a kilo difference.
My 5d mkiii also had the battery grip with additional battery. Then add a flash and overall you're talking several KG difference if I'm carrying all the gear.
In terms of physical differences in just the bodies, aside from the weight the sizing doesn't sound like a lot but the overall package is smaller, which again overtime makes a difference!
Edit: I didn't quite whatshischops so now my post looks wrong. It's directed at SDK.
I'm speaking from my own experience. I'm not exactly adverse to carrying heavy weights around either, being my other main hobby is scuba diving! Your weight comparison doesn't factor in many things.
People like to take several lenses out, not just one. So it's not just half a kilo difference.
My 5d mkiii also had the battery grip with additional battery. Then add a flash and overall you're talking several KG difference if I'm carrying all the gear.
In terms of physical differences in just the bodies, aside from the weight the sizing doesn't sound like a lot but the overall package is smaller, which again overtime makes a difference!
Edit: I didn't quite whatshischops so now my post looks wrong. It's directed at SDK.
Agreed. Besides its grown men carrying another kilo at most. I think it's something people that have spent a small fortune on camera gear and lose interest do to justify their initial spend wasn't a waste, downsize and try to recoup some of the spend. I doubt in reality many find themselves taking many more pictures.
People go on like a dslr and lens is like yomping across the Falklands.
I can understand it with travelling the world where weight and space is the issue.
I have "yomped" across the Falklands ( and the world in general ) carrying a lot of camera gear. I don't miss carrying 15-20kg around at all .... even though I can 'cos I'm a man
The only real difference I can see is the weight of a flash unit and batteries for the full frame setup.
Additional lenses - Phates 3 Olympus lenses are only around 400g lighter than the equivalent Canon lenses which also have IS.
You are not seriously suggesting the weight of a tripod, bag and batteries for a four thirds camera is (significantly) less than the full frame camera versions.
I didn't even realise they made lighter versions of full frame tripods for four-thirds cameras
All of that swapping gear for what is ultimately kit which produces lower quality images for a weight saving of approx 10%. Pack 1 less small water bottle and you're there
Additional lenses - Phates 3 Olympus lenses are only around 400g lighter than the equivalent Canon lenses which also have IS.
You are not seriously suggesting the weight of a tripod, bag and batteries for a four thirds camera is (significantly) less than the full frame camera versions.
I didn't even realise they made lighter versions of full frame tripods for four-thirds cameras
All of that swapping gear for what is ultimately kit which produces lower quality images for a weight saving of approx 10%. Pack 1 less small water bottle and you're there
Last edited:
You are not seriously suggesting the weight of a tripod, bag and batteries for a four thirds camera is (significantly) less than the full frame camera versions.
I didn't even realise they made lighter versions of full frame tripods for four-thirds cameras
All of that swapping gear for what is ultimately kit which produces lower quality images for a weight saving of approx 10%. Pack 1 less small water bottle and you're there
Completely agree with you. Personally I just do not get the whole M4/3 thing. Why are some people so obsessed with making their gear a bit lighter and bit smaller at the expense of image quality?
I think it probably boils down to how serious you are about photography though. If you're serious, you'll always want the best, which is a DSLR, hands down.
Can't say i've seen too many pro photographers going micro 4/3 to save a tiny bit of weight and size, as that's not the most important thing to them.
Last edited:
Wow, I really see a lot of bias and ignorance in this tread from people who don't appear to have experience switching from DSLR to mirrorless.
The mirrorless cameras are often half the weight of the DSLR equivalents, as are the fastest equivalent lenses. It makes a big difference when you are lugging your kit around all day, especially when it stays around your neck travelling and hiking.
I really do not miss my D750 and 24-70 / 70-200 VFII, and find that I take my mirrorless out with me shooting much more frequently. You can diss APSC sensors all you like, but I prefer the IQ on my Fuji to that of my Nikon, and I find the high ISO images more pleasing. Yes you get a DOF reduction, but it's not something that I miss in practise and would gladly sacrifice for the other benefits.
Zero regrets, and I no longer even use my RX100 which I initially bought as a backup for my DLSR.
It is becoming increasingly common for professional photographers to switch to mirrorless for at least a good portion of their work, with weight reductions and little to no sacrifice in IQ being cited as reasons. You can Google such articles.
If it wasn't for Fuji's confusingly half-hearted flash implementation, I would wager they would be used a lot more for studio work.
The mirrorless cameras are often half the weight of the DSLR equivalents, as are the fastest equivalent lenses. It makes a big difference when you are lugging your kit around all day, especially when it stays around your neck travelling and hiking.
I really do not miss my D750 and 24-70 / 70-200 VFII, and find that I take my mirrorless out with me shooting much more frequently. You can diss APSC sensors all you like, but I prefer the IQ on my Fuji to that of my Nikon, and I find the high ISO images more pleasing. Yes you get a DOF reduction, but it's not something that I miss in practise and would gladly sacrifice for the other benefits.
Zero regrets, and I no longer even use my RX100 which I initially bought as a backup for my DLSR.
It is becoming increasingly common for professional photographers to switch to mirrorless for at least a good portion of their work, with weight reductions and little to no sacrifice in IQ being cited as reasons. You can Google such articles.
If it wasn't for Fuji's confusingly half-hearted flash implementation, I would wager they would be used a lot more for studio work.
Last edited:
Cameras are often half the weight of the DSLR equivalents? Which ones? Half the weight of something that wasn't that heavy in the first place and ARE they really equivalents?
Also, what about lenses? Are they half the weight too and of equivalent quality? What's the Fuji equivalent to the the Nikkor 24/70? How much does that weigh and can it even touch the Nikkor's optics?
Also, what about lenses? Are they half the weight too and of equivalent quality? What's the Fuji equivalent to the the Nikkor 24/70? How much does that weigh and can it even touch the Nikkor's optics?
Soldato
There's a lot of bias and ignorance on both sides trying to prove their opinions and justifications, yourself included, as you've demonstrated time and time again by making unfair comparisons.
I think you are making the assumption that we have to convince you of something or that we care about changing your mind. I switched from Nikon D750 to mirrorless so can only give my personal experience with the switch and what matters to me, which I have done in a few threads. You are free to be as skeptical as you like based on your own pre-conceptions, it makes zero difference.
As for asking if Fuji optics can compare to Nikon, this question tells me everything. Do your research then maybe you can speak on a more informed basis.
Last edited:
No, I really am not, and not sure why you're so defensive?
I said I really don't get the whole M4/3 thing. I don't.
In your mirrorless case, the difference between the X-T2 and the D750 is 507g vs 840g. 333g lighter. If you're happy with that saving then bully for you. I'd much rather have the better performing camera, the D750, but you don't have to justify it to me and I don't want you to.
You have your thoughts and I have mine. I'm sure neither will be changed here.
Last edited:
Soldato
m4/3, with the right body and lenses, can save more than half the weight compared to an APS-C/FF mirrorless or DSLR setup.
Panasonics 12-35 and 35-100 F2.8 lenses, for example. Both are around 300g each, and give the equivalent of 24-200. And they have IS. Add a GX80 or G7, one of Panasonic's great primes and you're laughing.
The Olympus lenses that Phate has are a bit bigger in size and weight though, and lack IS due to Olympus' choice to have IBIS.
G7 + 12-35 F2.8 = 715g
5D III + 24-70 F4= 1550g (although this combo is the same length as the m4/3).
G7 + 35-100 F2.8 = 770g
5D III + 70-200 F4 IS = 1710g
Sure, the image quality won't be as good but I think for most people and most uses (web viewing), it's perfectly decent.
It's APS-C/FF mirrorless that increasingly makes less sense from a size and weight perspective compared to APS-C/FF DSLR. Of course there are other reasons why someone might prefer APS-C/FF mirrorless such as video, EVFs, etc. Though I get the best of both worlds with my Sony SLT.
Panasonics 12-35 and 35-100 F2.8 lenses, for example. Both are around 300g each, and give the equivalent of 24-200. And they have IS. Add a GX80 or G7, one of Panasonic's great primes and you're laughing.
The Olympus lenses that Phate has are a bit bigger in size and weight though, and lack IS due to Olympus' choice to have IBIS.
G7 + 12-35 F2.8 = 715g
5D III + 24-70 F4= 1550g (although this combo is the same length as the m4/3).
G7 + 35-100 F2.8 = 770g
5D III + 70-200 F4 IS = 1710g
Sure, the image quality won't be as good but I think for most people and most uses (web viewing), it's perfectly decent.
It's APS-C/FF mirrorless that increasingly makes less sense from a size and weight perspective compared to APS-C/FF DSLR. Of course there are other reasons why someone might prefer APS-C/FF mirrorless such as video, EVFs, etc. Though I get the best of both worlds with my Sony SLT.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Last edited:
Caporegime
The IS is built into the body isn't it? I've definitely noticed it kicking in when in use, that's for sure. I think it's more necessary on smaller and lighter camera gear.
Having been a photographer for years and used DSLR's for years including professionally and now having had my m4/3 for over a year and used it daily for 8 months straight whilst backpacking my thoughts on comparisons are as follows.
IQ - unless you're pixel peeping, with decent glass you will REALLY struggle to find a difference. The 5D3 had a better DR than the Oly but that's not to say the Oly is bad. Just that the 5D3 is exceptional.
DOF - Whilst m4/3 is good FF is definitely better. m4/3 has to be worked differently to get the most out of the DOF but it can and does provide excellent results. Just like FF, primes is where this will shine. I have a 17mm f/1.8 which is the answer to Canons 35mm f/1.4L and ignoring the size and weight difference (because they're stone cold facts, regardless of opinion) the Canon will obviously deliver a more creamy bokeh but the Olympus doesn't exactly lack in this department either. See my below examples.
Size & Weight - yes it does make a difference. Simply put. I'm not being biased. Yes I wouldn't mind owning a DSLR again now I'm not moving around as much but as I do not work professionally with photography anymore and as the quality delivered by the olympus isn't lacking for me in any way then simply put why would I lay out thousands of € just to have a DSLR again?
To give another example, when I picked up the prime lens in Tokyo I genuinely didn't notice the difference in my backpack. It's that small and light.
If I started shooting weddings or advertising services again, then it would be no question.
m4/3 cameras are also more friendly to non-photographers. My girlfriend before really didn't want to use the 5D3 or even pick it up. She was scared she would break it! Despite it probably being more robust than the Olympus. But the m4/3 she will pick up and use, experiment with and have fun with. If I take it to a party it will get passed around and my friends will give it a go and we'll all have fun. If I took the DSLR people genuinely didn't want to go near it.
The main thing that bugs me about the Olympus is the battery. 2-300 shots and its dead. A big difference coming from a shot capacity of 3000+ on the DSLR. But I'm looking into a grip anyway.
Anyway, there is my further 2p
Maybe it's just me but I think that Nikon / Canon are invested in their full frame business so that the best optics go in to high end lenses that have to be built for full frame, i.e. bigger and heavier. Obviously there are lenses made for crop sensors but they are accompanied with a drop in IQ.
Fuji is entirely focused on lenses for APS-C systems so they don't have that conflict. The 18-55 kit lens is quite impressive - ok it's not fixed aperture but it's a very good lens, 1/3rd the weight of the Nikkor and the IS is amazing in comparison to anything I've used on Canon.
But yes there are heavy lenses for fuji and if you want to exactly match zoom and aperture, forgetting the DOF difference for crop, you will be lugging around the same weight.
FWIW I can take 4 lenses (2 zoom and 2 prime) with me now for the same weight as any two of my old 60D lenses and the IQ is just as good. I would never have taken 4 lenses out with me before, regardless of arguments about whether it's sensible to do so...
On top of that my pictures out of Fuji just seem better - having the EVF and being able to see what the picture is actually going to look like feels like cheating.
Last edited: