Smaller camera than my 6D

budget would be useful and just how small is small! You could go 80D like suggested but it is only very slightly smaller, you could go Sony a7 as suggested but it is pricey or if you really mean small you could go Sony RX100!

Think about your needs, ie does small mean jeans pocket? Coat pocket? man bag? will this replace or complement the 6d etc etc
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The A7 MK1 can be had for £999 with the 28-70MM standard lens.
Click to expand...

The reason I haven't changed from my A99 to the A7 series is that there is virtually no weight / bulk saving. The lenses are bigger and heavier in most cases which means I'll still need a comparable bag to the one I have now and that totally negates the swap (purely from a size & weight perspective).

Loads of options available Op, something a little left field for an all in one solution would be a Panasonic LX100. Compact (ish) camera with a 24-70mm zoom lens, f1.7 aperture on the wide end and a m4/3 sensor.
 
Columbo said:
The reason I haven't changed from my A99 to the A7 series is that there is virtually no weight / bulk saving. The lenses are bigger and heavier in most cases which means I'll still need a comparable bag to the one I have now and that totally negates the swap (purely from a size & weight perspective).

Loads of options available Op, something a little left field for an all in one solution would be a Panasonic LX100. Compact (ish) camera with a 24-70mm zoom lens, f1.7 aperture on the wide end and a m4/3 sensor.
Click to expand...

The A7 weights 474g with a battery. The Eos 6D weighs around 300g more.

The 28-70MM FE lens weighs 250g. That means the A7 and 28-70MM weigh less than a 6D body. I have a similar weight D600 and with an old AFD 28-70MM(which is not that heavy),and I could easily notice the A7 setup was lighter and it has the same sensor as my camera.

The reason why the standard lens is bigger is because it need OIS and your A99 has IBIS. The Canon bodies also lack IBIS so for equivalent quality lenses its not going to be lighter overall AFAIK.

Edit!!

OP has a Canon 17-40MM which weights nearly 500g.

The Canon is also a longer and wider lens too(it is a constant aperture lens). However,it lacks IS.
 
Last edited:
This argument has been done to death, as soon as you compare equivalent lenses there is no weight savings. If you are happy with the small selection of slower and/or normal primes then there is some marginal gain.

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 weighs 520g
The Canon 17-40mm f/4 weighs 475g.

Sony 70-200mm f/4 weighs 840g
Canon 70-200mm f/4 weighs 705g




As soon as you have added the extra batteries the Sony A7 needs to match the battery life the system have the same wight in your bag.


Where A Sony A& might work out is if you are the type of photographer that is happy using a single 50mm f/1.8 prime for example, or the 35mm f/2,8.

Canon 100D weighs only 370g the 24mm f/2.8 only 125g, (or 500mm f1.8 for 160g). A smaller lighter setup than the A7.
 
Last edited:
Any of the 1 inch compacts

LX100

Olympus E-PL7

Kevin-Lee-The-Phoblographer-Olympus-PEN-E-PL7-Product-Images-7-of-9-680x453.jpg
 
D.P. said:
This argument has been done to death, as soon as you compare equivalent lenses there is no weight savings. If you are happy with the small selection of slower and/or normal primes then there is some marginal gain.

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 weighs 520g
The Canon 17-40mm f/4 weighs 475g.

Sony 70-200mm f/4 weighs 840g
Canon 70-200mm f/4 weighs 705g




As soon as you have added the extra batteries the Sony A7 needs to match the battery life the system have the same wight in your bag.


Where A Sony A& might work out is if you are the type of photographer that is happy using a single 50mm f/1.8 prime for example, or the 35mm f/2,8.

Canon 100D weighs only 370g the 24mm f/2.8 only 125g, (or 500mm f1.8 for 160g). A smaller lighter setup than the A7.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact the A7 and the 28-70MM OIS,weighs LESS than a 6D BODY. Now I didn't know Canon made negative weight lenses?

The A7 kit weighs 724grams - the EOS 6D weighs 770grams. That is a fact.

I was in John Lewis just yesterday and I had my D600 with me. The D600 body felt as heavy as the A7 kit.

Also the fact the Canon lens lacks any kind of IS,which means they are not equivalent.

So that means you would need to consider the 16-35MM/F2.8 which weights 640grams not the inferior F4 lens which will be worse once the light drops.

It has no stabilisation of any sort.

The Sony 16-35MM/F4 is an OIS lens. It weighs 518grams.

So the 6D and 16-35MM/F2.8 weighs over 1.4KG(770gram body and 640gram lens)

The A7 and the 16-35MM/F4.0 OIS weights just under 1.1 KG(474 gram body and 518 gram lens).

Yes,the 6D setup weighs 30% MORE.

Also the battery argument is weird - I carry three batteries with my D600 and they are not stuck round my neck.

Maybe you glue all the extra batteries to your camera,I don't so the battery argument is pointless. It adds nothing to weight carried around your neck which is the most important aspect when walking.

I should blooming know having done enough of that around Wales,etc.

The 100D is rubbish in low light - my D600 utterly destroys it and the A7 has virtually the same sensor.

For £999 the A7 is a decent deal.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Apart from the fact the A7 and the 28-70Mm OIS,weighs LESS than a 6D BODY. Now I didn't know Canon made negative weight lenses?
Click to expand...
Ehh, the 28-70 is entirely different to the 17-40mm lens the OP is interested in replicating. The only possibility for Sony A7 is the 16-35 that weighs more.



The res of your post is equally largely rubbish. A Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 is an entirely different lens. Sony don't even have anything equivalent to that, you are stuck at f/4.0. Comparing lenses 1 stop apart is just ridiculous:rolleyes:



IF you are worried about weight around your neck get a decent shoulder strap and/or backpack for the gear.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Apart from the fact the A7 and the 28-70MM OIS,weighs LESS than a 6D BODY. Now I didn't know Canon made negative weight lenses?

The A7 kit weighs 724grams - the EOS 6D weighs 770grams. That is a fact.

I was in John Lewis just yesterday and I had my D600 with me. The D600 body felt as heavy as the A7 kit.

Also the fact the Canon lens lacks any kind of IS,which means they are not equivalent.

So that means you would need to consider the 16-35MM/F2.8 which weights 640grams not the inferior F4 lens which will be worse once the light drops.

It has no stabilisation of any sort.

The Sony 16-35MM/F4 is an OIS lens. It weighs 518grams.

So the 6D and 16-35MM/F2.8 weighs over 1.4KG(770gram body and 640gram lens)

The A7 and the 16-35MM/F4.0 OIS weights just under 1.1 KG(474 gram body and 518 gram lens).

Yes,the 6D setup weighs 30% MORE.

Also the battery argument is weird - I carry three batteries with my D600 and they are not stuck round my neck.

Maybe you glue all the extra batteries to your camera,I don't so the battery argument is pointless. It adds nothing to weight carried around your neck which is the most important aspect when walking.

I should blooming know having done enough of that around Wales,etc.

The 100D is rubbish in low light - my D600 utterly destroys it and the A7 has virtually the same sensor.

For £999 the A7 is a decent deal.
Click to expand...

D.P. said:
Ehh, the 28-70 is entirely different to the 17-40mm lens the OP is interested in replicating. The only possibility for Sony A7 is the 16-35 that weighs more.



The res of your post is equally largely rubbish. A Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 is an entirely different lens. Sony don't even have anything equivalent to that, you are stuck at f/4.0. Comparing lenses 1 stop apart is just ridiculous:rolleyes:



IF you are worried about weight around your neck get a decent shoulder strap and/or backpack for the gear.
Click to expand...

The rest of your post is rubbish- stop deflecting. You have never handled an A7 and you have no clue.

The Canon 6D body weighs more than the A7 with a standard lens.

Ergo,any lens with a 6D will weigh more. It simple maths and you are more worried about recommending a brand.

You are on purpose ignoring the fact the Sony 16-35MM/F4 has OIS and the Canon 17-40MM/F4 has no OIS.

So yes the equivalent Canon lens is the 16-35MM/F2.8 which also has no OIS - since you have no clue that OIS means you can handhold the camera at lower shutter speed before camera shake is a problem.

The Canon setup does not have that advantage since it need more light in the first place so you push a sufficiently higher shutter speed.

That is the whole point of OIS development - I even have the first consumer OIS camera ever made FFS which was a Nikon compact called the 700VR in 1993.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The rest of your post is rubbish- stop deflecting. You have never handled an A7 and you have no clue.
Click to expand...
You are the open spouting utter garbage on here. The facts are the facts, the Sony 16-35mm f/4.0 weighs more than the Canon Equivalent, The Sony 70-200mm f/4 and many of the other lenses weigh more. The reason is physics. Sony don''t have the ability to break the laws of physics, however much their marketing manages to convince some people that they can.

And you are wrong again, I have handled the A7 variants a lot with most of the different lenses. The last reason i would swap to a Sony A7 setup would be weight savings. there are many more pros to the A7 setup, wight is simply not one of them.

The Canon 6D body weighs more than the A7 with a standard lens.
Click to expand...
So what. A standard lens that is slow and offers minimal zoom.

Ergo,any lens with a 6D will weigh more. It simple maths and you are more worried about recommending a brand.
Click to expand...
At simple maths you are failing. How much does Sony 70-200mm f/4.0 weigh compared to a Canon?

You are on purpose ignoring the fact the Sony 16-35MM/F4 has OIS and the Canon 17-40MM/F4 has no OIS.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring, but it is pretty much irreverent. Canon don't have a 17-40mm IS lens yet, i'm sure they will soon. Until then, that is the best comparison you can do. IS is one of the most overrated technologies there is, it doesn't helps with moving subjects and it doesn't compete with a tripod. You are ignoring that f/2.8 lens is entirely different lens to a slower F/4.0 and not at all comparable.

So yes the equivalent Canon lens is the 16-35MM/F2.8
Click to expand...
Not equivalent in the slightest on any realm of logical thinning. That is en entirely flawed premise that just makes the rest of your drivel look embarrassing for you.



The Canon setup does not have that advantage since it need more light in the first place so you push a sufficiently high shutter speed.
Click to expand...


More rubbish. If you need to maintain 1/500th second shutter speed to prevent subject motion then the only thing that matters is the aperture and the performance of the sensor. Any kind of IS is never a substitute for a tripod, faster aperture or better sensor.
 
D.P. said:
rubbish and backpeddling and seems to get the whole point for OIS development
Click to expand...

Oh,and since you don't want to include the 16-35MM/F2.8,what about the Canon 16-35MM/F4 IS USM?? Did you honestly think I had forgotten that lens??

That weighs MORE at 615grams than the non-IS 2.8 and trying to compare the 17-40MM(well LOL).

So lets tally things up then:

1.)A7 body weight ~ 474grams
2.)6D body weight ~ 770 grams
3.)Sony 16-35MM/F4 OIS ~ 518 grams
4.)Canon 16-35MM/F4 USM IS ~ 615 grams

Total weight A7 + 16-35MM/F4 OIS is 992 grams.
Total weight of 6D + 16-35MM/F4 USM IS is 1388 grams.

Yes,I actually made a typo for the A7 setup and thought it weighed 1.1KG.

That makes the 6D setup around 400 grams heavier,ie,around 40% heavier.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
The Canon 17-40mm f/4 weighs 475g. That is what the OP owns and wants soemthign lights, not heavier.
Click to expand...

But you said equivalent and then compared a non-IS Canon to an IS Sony.

See,the IS Canon weighs more than the Sony.

Even with the 17-40MM which lacks IS,the whole setup weighs more than the A7.

1.)A7 body weight ~ 474grams
2.)6D body weight ~ 770 grams
3.)Sony 16-35MM/F4 OIS ~ 518 grams
4.)Canon 17-40MM/F4 ~ 475 grams

Considering you are getting IS over the Canon setup,there is nothing in the lens weights.

Still the A7 setup weights 992grams. The 6D setup weighs nearly 1245grams.

Thats 250grams more or nearly 26% and you gain OIS too.

Plus the 24MP sensor in the Sony is amazing - its what is behind the D600/D610/D750. DR is brilliant and better than the 6D sensor and IIRC the lower light ability is pretty decent too.

Well TBH thats enough arguing - we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
Willis said:
Thanks for all your advise and options but looks like i'll stick to carrying the 6d and 17-40. My bag when walking is about 15kg so not worth changing it if i'm only going to be saving a little weight.
Click to expand...

You would be saving around 300grams to 500grams overall depending on the lens with an A7.

Even the best low light APS-C bodies like the D500 and 7D MK2 are actually heavier than what you got.

APS-C Mirrorless would save weight but again the better low light bodies are not very,very light either.

There are cameras like the XT2 which some full frame users have changed from,but again the issue is that they are comparable weight to the A7(!). This is why the first A7 had such an impact when launched - the vast majority of APS-C mirrorless cameras weigh about the same.

Also the basic issue,is with the smaller sensor cameras you are getting physically less light onto the sensor:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

So a smaller sensored camera might actually not have as small lenses as you want in reality to equalise things(look at how massive the 18-35MM/F1.8 ART is for example).

Edit!!

This would be the smallest interchangeable lens camera with a decent sized sensor:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/slrs/panasonic_dmcgf8

But whether it will meet your needs for good low light ability is another question as it has a m4/3 sensor.

With the collapsible 9-18MM(18-36MM equivalent) lens,it would come to around 400 grams. With the better 7-14MM(14-28MM) it would come to around 600 grams.

But again can't say how the image quality is when compared to a FF camera.

You would have to step down in image quality quite a bit in low light methinks,so there is only so much weight saving you can have sadly with a FF sensor and lenses.

Second Edit!!

Looking at one of the smallest dSLRs(mentioned earlier),the 100D weighs 407grams. With the very slow 10-18MM STM/F4.5-5.6 it comes to around 650 grams,and that will worse in all metrics than your current gear in low light(especially with the older generation sensor). With the larger aperture EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM,the total weight is 800 grams.

The Eos M mirrorless cameras with the newer Canon APS-C sensors are over 400 grams too. With the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM again it comes to around 650 grams too.

But remember F4 on a FF camera is not the same as F4 on an APS-C camera either,so you will be giving up low light ability but the EF-M lens does have IS which helps.

Again I don't know how sharp these lenses are compared to what you have now though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom