which mirrorless
- Thread starter sid-180
- Start date
For that money i would go for a sony a6300.
Or if 4k video isn't important to you, I'd go for a sony a6000 plus some nice quality lenses (samyang 12mm f2 and sigma 30mm f1.4). Obviously lens choice would depend on the type of photography you're into.
Or if 4k video isn't important to you, I'd go for a sony a6000 plus some nice quality lenses (samyang 12mm f2 and sigma 30mm f1.4). Obviously lens choice would depend on the type of photography you're into.
What are your priorities? Presumably size is important otherwise you would just take the D750, inc which case I reccomend whichever M43 camera takes your fancy. Little point getting an EVIl camera with an APS-C sensor because then you get stuck with the same big lens issues. This is especially true for any longer lenses.
Agreed. Once you get the tiny mirrorless bodies with large sensors, you cant break physics and the lenses just become bigger so you end up with a camera the same size as your dslr.
Soldato
Why? Even with a small ish APS-C mirrorless camera the lenses are the same size as for APS-C DSLRs, so even with a couple of lenses, the total package won't be much smaller or weigh much less than 'a huge dslr'.
For out and about and holidays, get a decent compact like an RX100, TZ100, G7X.
If you spend £1000 on the a6300, what are you going to do for lenses? The kit 16-50 power zoom is naff and best avoided.
Fuji APS-C bodies and most lenses are often smaller and lighter than both their Nikon APS-C and full frame class equivalent. A Fuji X10 + 18-55mm is a great lightweight travel combo and only 660g. That is 100g less than a D750 body without lens.
Soldato
It's 691g for that combo, which 149g less than the D750 body, but I wasn't making a point based solely on weight. The Fuji setup is also very expensive for an every day and holiday second camera.
APS-C mirrorless is still closer to APS-C DSLR in terms of overall size and weight than it is to m43, and a lot of the Fuji lenses ARE as big and weigh as much as their Canon/Nikon/Sony equivalents, or more so in some cases.
E.g. XF 90mm F2 vs AF-S 85mm F1.8G or F1.4G.
Depending on what lenses the OP has, he may be better off just getting a D3300/D5500 body, which doesn't weigh much more than the X-T10 or similar mirrorless cameras and IMO, are much nicer to hold and use, as someone who's recently switched from Fuji back to a DSLR. Or just getting a decent compact like I suggested earlier.
Last edited:
Soldato
I couldn't agree with that less.
I sold all my Nikon gear (D3 and big 'pro' lenses (24-70mm 2.8 etc)) and switched to Fuji. Haven't regretted it a single bit.
Not only could I trade in all of my gear for a new X-T1 and a few lenses, but it's MUCH smaller and lighter to carry about. And I travel all over the world regularly, so I do notice the lack of weight.
You are changing a FF camera with pro-level FF lenses down to a mirrorless camera with APS-C sized sensor and lenses designed to cover only the APS-C image circle and yet you some how think that is a valid comparisons?
It is simple physics at the end of the day. For most lenses they would actually have to be slightly bigger for a camera with a smaller mount height all things being equal.
It's not your budget, it's his budget. He said he has £1000 to spend.
No, it isn't, an Olympus OM-D E-M5 weighs 425g. That is around 50g heavier than the Fuji X-T10.
No, they aren't.
Erm, the equivalent to the 85mm would be the 56mm f1.2. The 90mm weight 540g and is equivalent to a full frame 135mm, the Nikon equivalent of which weighs 815g.
You are posting a frightening amount of BS.
It's not your budget, it's his budget. He said he has £1000 to spend.
No, it isn't, an Olympus OM-D E-M5 weighs 425g. That is around 50g heavier than the Fuji X-T10.
No, they aren't.
Erm, the equivalent to the 85mm would be the 56mm f1.2. The 90mm weight 540g and is equivalent to a full frame 135mm, the Nikon equivalent of which weighs 815g.
You are posting a frightening amount of BS.
So are you. The Niko 135G is a FF lens, when used on a FF sensor ist is going to give 1 & 2/3rd stop wider aperture. 1 Stop more or less doubles the weight of the lens, so the Fuji would actually be far heavier if it was to be equivalent aperture.
Last time I checked Nikon didn't have a 135mm f4, so please find me another equivalent.
The original 85mm is perfectly valid.
Ther XT1 has an APS-C sensor. So the 540g Fuji 90mm gives almost identical FoV to an 85mm f/1.8 on a crop DSLR. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G weighs only 350g yet has to cover the FF image circle and is 1/3rd of s top faster to boot. Mount that on a D3300 which weighs 460g.
Nikon DSLR combo: 810g
Fuji Combo: 980g
not only will the Nikon give an extra 1/3rd stop low-light performance/shallow DoF control but you have far more battery life. You need at least 3 batteries for the Fuji to match 1 for the Nikon.
There really is no weight saving in the lenses at all, a complete myth.
Maybe me and Michael got our wires crossed on that particular point, because I was obviously talking about the closest equivalent when mounted on a full frame, not on a Nikon APS-C.
So what, carrying a couple of spares in your pockets adds no discernible weight.
Many photographers who have switched systems would disagree with you there. Of course the lenses are not 1:1 performance vs a full frame, but the performance and IQ is still awesome and the weight of a Fuji bag is generally much less than a Nikon FF bag.
Caporegime
Sony's limited lens range pushed me to micro four-thirds. For £1k I got a GX8 with 14-140mm II and a Pana-Leica 25mm F1.4
That's a fair bit of kit compared to the A6300/kit lens for the money. You do notice the increased noise on m43 compared with APSC.
That's a fair bit of kit compared to the A6300/kit lens for the money. You do notice the increased noise on m43 compared with APSC.
Last edited: