Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: adriantyler on September 05, 2018, 03:24:45 pm
-
I switched from my D800 to the Sony A7 system a few years ago (we have loads of threads stating the pros and cons.) However, whatever the virtues or vices of said camera, as I see it (I am a layman,) Sony have scored a MAJOR GOAL over the established brands with their mirror-less electronic cameras, question is, why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirror-less? It seems to me (again, I am a layman) that Canikon have had a severe a$$ kicking for this lack of foresight... hmmm... Was it worth the wait? Or are they just gonna pick up the crumbs that fall off the Sony table?
-
Nikon tried out Nikon 1, first.
Canon tried EOS M, first.
If the end user saw value in a switch to Sony back then, it is a bit moot to ask why not now switch to Nikon or Canon.
Canon, Nikon & Sony will do what they want, not really up to us.
-
Big companies are in general incapable of killing off their cash cows. Witness Kodak, which created electronic camera tech in the mid-1970s and then mostly sat on it for fear of cutting into film sales. Nikon and Canon have both made their bones in the SLR market. But that they're both jumping (how far remains to be seen) into mirrorless could be a sign they're capable of being more flexible than the norm. They've both got large user bases too. I wouldn't write either one off.
-Dave-
-
Big companies are in general incapable of killing off their cash cows. Witness Kodak, which created electronic camera tech in the mid-1970s and then mostly sat on it for fear of cutting into film sales. Nikon and Canon have both made their bones in the SLR market. But that they're both jumping (how far remains to be seen) into mirrorless could be a sign they're capable of being more flexible than the norm. They've both got large user bases too. I wouldn't write either one off.
-Dave-
Yes, a tragic example, the loss of 200,000 secure jobs...
As you say, let's not write Canikon off, the Nikon 40 mpixel whatever it's called looks great, if it can handle the ASPH leica lenses better than the Sony I'll get one...
My question is more related to how on earth they didn't see it coming...
-
They saw it coming but, looking at facts and not hype, at least Nikon has been able so far to release higher performance bodies using DSLR technology.
They have chosen to enter mirrorless seriously because they now think they can do better with mirrorless technology. As good bodywise and much better lenswise.
Nikon is a very traditional optical company who thinks that photographers look at hard facts and will chose the system delivering the best image quality.
Canon has focused on half baked video, some nice lenses and invested their cash in sales and marketing and it has worked well for them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, a tragic example, the loss of 200,000 secure jobs...
As you say, let's not write Canikon off, the Nikon 40 mpixel whatever it's called looks great, if it can handle the ASPH leica lenses better than the Sony I'll get one...
My question is more related to how on earth they didn't see it coming...
Kodak never had 200,000 employees. World wide it was closer to 25 to 30K at their peak.
-
For me the big thing isn't cameras, it's lenses. Both Canon & Nikon have limited resources to design and manufacture new lenses. I have to wonder how much of that limited resource will go into new DSLR lenses and how much into the new mounts. The new mounts offer lens designers some new opportunities, and I think that's what will eventually cause DSLR cameras to slowly fade. I look at the Nikon S series and the conversion to the Nikon F series. After searching the internet for 20 minutes I've been unable to find any S mount lenses with serial numbers after 1960. (F was introduced in 1959.) Doesn't mean they're not out there, I just can't find them. Nikon seems to have switched practically overnight from S to F mount! That's unlikely to be the case now, with millions of F mount cameras out there, but still I don't see how Nikon will be able to maintain three lines of lenses.
Kent in SD
-
Nikon and Canon will be facing tough decisions moving forward...
I don’t they can afford to make many mistakes in terms of mirrorless/dSLR lenses line up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Kodak never had 200,000 employees. World wide it was closer to 25 to 30K at their peak.
here we have 130,000 people in 1973, most of those jobs secure middle class jobs with pensions etc.
http://theweek.com/articles/481308/rise-fall-kodak-by-numbers
sorry, off topic...
-
I suppose you mean full frame MILC? If that is the case, the reason is simple. Both companies have analysed the market and Sony's success with the Alpha FE system, and think that now is the right time to also make money from it.
While preventing more own users to buy Sony.
-
For me the big thing isn't cameras, it's lenses. Both Canon & Nikon have limited resources to design and manufacture new lenses. I have to wonder how much of that limited resource will go into new DSLR lenses and how much into the new mounts. The new mounts offer lens designers some new opportunities, and I think that's what will eventually cause DSLR cameras to slowly fade. I look at the Nikon S series and the conversion to the Nikon F series. After searching the internet for 20 minutes I've been unable to find any S mount lenses with serial numbers after 1960. (F was introduced in 1959.) Doesn't mean they're not out there, I just can't find them. Nikon seems to have switched practically overnight from S to F mount! That's unlikely to be the case now, with millions of F mount cameras out there, but still I don't see how Nikon will be able to maintain three lines of lenses.
Kent in SD
Back then with the intro of the slr F, Nikon understood the limitations of rangefinder bodies and the fact that it could sell many more lenses if it tied its flag to a ship that had unlimited potential, which rangefinders never did.
It was a smart move, as history went on to prove.
Rob
-
Or are they just gonna pick up the crumbs that fall off the Sony table?
I wonder who it is that buys a Z7 or a A7R3 ? Until today, if you wanted a high performance mirrorless, you had no choice, and if it meant selling your CaNikon lenses, so be it. Now that's not the case. I would guess that photographers with even a modest investment in a system will need a very big incentive to switch, so a Z7 buyer will be someone who has a Nikon kit and a A7R3 buyer will be someone who has Sony kit. That's more a case of Nikon stopping crumbs (or indeed cakes) falling off their own table.
-
I wonder who it is that buys a Z7 or a A7R3 ? Until today, if you wanted a high performance mirrorless, you had no choice, and if it meant selling your CaNikon lenses, so be it. Now that's not the case. I would guess that photographers with even a modest investment in a system will need a very big incentive to switch, so a Z7 buyer will be someone who has a Nikon kit and a A7R3 buyer will be someone who has Sony kit. That's more a case of Nikon stopping crumbs (or indeed cakes) falling off their own table.
Let's not forget the new photographers just entering the hobby. China, Asia and India has a middle class rising that will drive many company decisions.
-
Let's not forget the new photographers just entering the hobby. China, Asia and India has a middle class rising that will drive many company decisions.
Agreed but I'd have thought that those would more likely be looking at the Z6 vs Sony whatever?
Thinking about how I became a Nikon user - I went into a shop and handled the D70 and Canon equivalent, did not see (or understand) a technical difference, and bought the one that felt nicer (or had the cuter shop assistant). Nikon now have something to put into the hands of new photographers who will care more about the assistant's pretty smile than Tony Northrup ranting on about card slots, so I don't see them as being at much of a disadvantage at all at this stage.
-
I wonder who it is that buys a Z7 or a A7R3 ?
The great majority of photographers currently using 36x24 cameras are using Canon or Nikon SLRs, and the great majority of lenses owned for 36x24 format are Canon and Nikon lenses. (A single half-year of Sony being #1 in 36x24 format sales in the USA when it had the only new "entry-level" priced model in that format does not vaporize all the Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses bought over recent years.) So I think the answer includes lots of those Canon and Nikon users who are confident that their current lenses will work fairly well on adaptors so that they only initially need one or two new lenses, and who over all trust those brands and their lenses more as long-term prospects.
They might be wrong in that judgement, but that is a different topic!
P. S. My guess is that the timing of Nikon Z and Canon R relates in part to waiting for "good enough" AF with SLR lenses on EVF bodies.
-
The great majority of photographers currently using 36x24 cameras are using Canon or Nikon SLRs, and the great majority of lenses owned for 36x24 format are Canon and Nikon lenses.
Why would the owner of a 5DIV or D850 and a bunch of lenses want to buy a Canon R or Z7? How will they make better images? It can't be size and weight, since by the time you've added an adapter, you've negated that advantage?
-
Why would the owner of a 5DIV or D850 and a bunch of lenses want to buy a Canon R or Z7? How will they make better images? It can't be size and weight, since by the time you've added an adapter, you've negated that advantage?
This has been answered many times already.
- all the values of mirrorless vs DSLRs (the exact same reasons why many Canikon users have bought Sony a7!bodies): EVF (preview, histogram, better in the dark,...), AF (full frame coverage, smaller points, no lens adjustement, better face AF/eye AF)
- compact size with native lenses
- IBIS (for the Z)
- silent shooting
- higher quality lenses thanks to larger mount
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why would the owner of a 5DIV or D850 and a bunch of lenses want to buy a Canon R or Z7? How will they make better images? It can't be size and weight, since by the time you've added an adapter, you've negated that advantage?
Firstly a lot of those Canon and Nikon 36x24 owners have less expensive models (6DII, D750) and/or older models: "why upgrade from the previous latest and greatest" is usually a red-herring.
Secondly, as has been said many times already, some people prefer the new EVF systems for a variety of reasons; "mirrorless" long since stopped being mainly about size and weight, and that was maybe mostly about smaller format models with neither EVF nor OVF.
Thirdly, a Z or R body is likely to be used a large proportion of the time with one or two new "native" lenses, along-side some SLR lenses already owned: then the bulk advantage applies.
(Fourthly, a Z7 + FTZ adaptor is in fact smaller and lighter than a D850, but to me that is a minor issue.)
-
Why would the owner of a 5DIV or D850 and a bunch of lenses want to buy a Canon R or Z7? How will they make better images? It can't be size and weight, since by the time you've added an adapter, you've negated that advantage?
Well I'm a good example of someone that moved to mirrorless to save bulk and weight of my travel kit...and I saved around 40% of my DSLR kit and boosted my image quality in the process...so those that don't feel you can create a smaller lighter travel kit from mirrorless just hasn't really tried...or doesn't want to try.
-
It would also be possible to have two different kits based around the same camera for different purposes. If I end up with the Z7, which I have on preorder and am seriously considering, the concept would be:
Long hike kit (up to hundreds of miles):
Z7
24-70 f4
14-30 f4
Four batteries (charge 'em from solar or a weekly town stop)
Several XQD cards
iPhone with Lightning to USB adapter and lightweight XQD reader as a backup device (I knew there was a reason Apple has half terabyte iPhones). Besides being a lightweight device with a ton of SSD, an iPhone also has good LTE and WiFi - it can send the photos to cloud backup on town stops, and Verizon will regret the day they sold unlimited data to photographers - it doesn't get throttled because it's not on congested towers (and they are looking for people doing a ton of downloads, not uploads.
Solar charging rig or backup battery as conditions dictate
Before solar or backup battery, but including the four camera batteries, this is right around four pounds for near 4x5" image quality anywhere... It's relatively versatile - no long focal lengths, but I almost never do wildlife on multi-day trips (nothing vaguely carryable is long enough...).
For day hikes and other shorter trips, add some or all of (some rented as needed):
FTZ adapter
Tilt-shift lens
Gitzo Series 1 tripod
Long lens
True macro lens
For shooting events or other "in town" uses, any of the above plus:
A Speedlight or two
MacBook Pro
Little Canon Selphy photo printer (I have been known to use these to amuse my nieces and nephews at various events)
One could do something similar with any mirrorless system - my present Fuji system is organized along similar lines, and I would gradually add the higher-resolution Nikon gear as I could afford it. Easy adapter access to a big DSLR lens line helps for things like tilt-shift lenses, but Fuji, Sony and Micro 4/3 all have most of the lenses to do a travel plus in town system...
If the best primary body is as heavy as a D850 or a 5DIV, and the compact travel lenses aren't available, the "long hike kit" balloons from 4 lbs to 6 or 7, which is huge when your total pack capacity is in the low 30s...
-
- higher quality lenses thanks to larger mount
We've had a lot of marketing speak on this but I'm not convinced it'll translate into demonstrably better lenses or wider apertures.
Time will tell but my bet is that we probably wont see anything earth shattering that is unequivocally due to larger mounts.
-
There's an interesting video on Thomas Heaton's YouTube channel where he considers swapping his 5D4 system for X-T2 for hiking purposes. He concludes that the weight saving would be about 200g which is obviously miniscule compared with something like a water bottle. In all these comparisons it's essential to compare like for like. Personally if I were hiking for days I'd stick to u43 :-)
-
We've had a lot of marketing speak on this but I'm not convinced it'll translate into demonstrably better lenses or wider apertures.
Time will tell but my bet is that we probably wont see anything earth shattering that is unequivocally due to larger mounts.
Well, physics tells us it should, manufacturers tells us it should and early measurements seem to confirm these forecast.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f4-s-review
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There's an interesting video on Thomas Heaton's YouTube channel where he considers swapping his 5D4 system for X-T2 for hiking purposes. He concludes that the weight saving would be about 200g which is obviously miniscule compared with something like a water bottle. In all these comparisons it's essential to compare like for like. Personally if I were hiking for days I'd stick to u43 :-)
I can't find that specific video but I find that hard to believe unless you have to have and carry all the "pro" lenses for Fuji in which case the difference becomes much smaller. When you hike for photography only, the weight compromises that one is willing to make are much bigger than when photography is on side.
If you are willing to carry only one body and a couple of lenses there are weight savings to be made in the mirrorless world.
-
I can't find that specific video but I find that hard to believe unless you have to have and carry all the "pro" lenses for Fuji in which case the difference becomes much smaller. When you hike for photography only, the weight compromises that one is willing to make are much bigger than when photography is on side.
If you are willing to carry only one body and a couple of lenses there are weight savings to be made in the mirrorless world.
If I think of the way I hiked for many years with a Zeiss 100mm f2 macro on my D800, tripod and pano head, and I compare that to the equivalent a7rIII + 100mm f2.8 macro, the gain isn’t that great, around 300gr (only body weigth difference in fact), which is typically less than an adult’s day to day body weigth variation.
Add one extra battery for the Sony and the gap becomes negligible.
Those 300gr corresponds to 10% of the weight of water I used to be carrying for example.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The video I refer to is here :
https://youtu.be/PipegK--MwE
-
The weight difference between Micro 4/3 and Fuji APS-C or even Sony, Nikon or Canon full-frame is tiny when you look at the bodies and lenses you'd want. Yes, you can come up with some theoretical Micro 4/3 systems that are tiny and really light, but you lose a lot of the advantages. The really small bodies are NOT the incredibly durable ones - the E-M1 mkII is as durable as any camera out there, but the E-M10 line and the PEN line (where the real weight savings are) are fragile, non weathersealed consumer cameras. The incredibly durable E-M1 mkII is 75 grams heavier than an X-T2 and only 100 grams lighter than a 46 MP Nikon Z7.
The same holds for the lenses - the Olympus pro 12-40 is heavier than the (comparable quality) Fuji 18-55 - yes, the Olympus pro is a fixed aperture, but from a depth of field perspective, the Fuji is actually faster at the short end. You could replace the Olympus pro lens with a very high-quality prime (you could come up with a similar weight savings with a Fujinon prime, although the Micro 4/3 lens would be lighter), or with a low-quality consumer zoom, where the Fuji 16-50 isn't that much lighter than the high-quality 18-55 but the Olympus options go down to a pancake lens that weighs little more than a body cap (but most of the reviews I've seen say image quality is also close to what you'd get from a body cap).
Here are the weights for a bunch of options as close as I could get them for a quality, weathersealed body with a high-quality standard zoom and a wide zoom. The comparisons are NOT perfect - nobody makes perfectly aligned gear. Sony and Canon have a little extra reach on the telephoto end, because the only Canon lens in the same focal length range is a very heavy f2.0, and the Sony option that doesn't go to 105 is the 24-70 f4 "Zeiss", which doesn't perform as well as the others (it's in the notes). The Panasonic GH5 and G9 are both heavier than the Olympus E-M1 mkII. The E-M5 mkII is in the notes - I chose the E-M1 mkII as the primary body because its build quality matches or exceeds the others.
The Micro 4/3 lenses being f2.8 is not an actual discrepancy - it's needed because they have a full stop less subject isolation than an APS-C lens of the same speed and close to 2 stops compared to full-frame, and the sensor is at least a stop noisier/less DR at the same ISO. A Micro 4/3 body shooting a f2.8 lens wide open at ISO 100 is a very reasonable comparison to a Fuji at f4/ISO 200 or a modern full-frame sensor at f5.6/ISO 400. There are no high-quality Micro 4/3 f4 zooms, either - once you leave the excellent f2.8 lenses, you are looking at cheap consumer glass that is f5.6 or worse at the long end.
The batteries aren't quite comparable - the Fujis and the E-M5 mkII use a smaller, lighter battery than the others, the E-M1 mk II is in the middle, while the Sony, Nikon and Canon use beefy DSLR batteries that get around twice the shots per charge. Add 50 grams or so to the Fuji and the E-M5 mk II for a spare battery to compensate.
Fuji X-T2 (503 grams), 18-55 (308 grams), 10-24 (404 grams) - 1215 grams with 1 battery and card (add 173 grams for the X-H1, which has IBIS like the others).
Olympus E-M1 mk II (574 grams), 12-40 Pro (382 grams), 7-14 Pro (534 grams) - 1490 grams with 1 battery and card (save 170 grams by substituting E-M5 mk II, but go from probably the most durable body in this group to probably the least).
The lightest Micro 4/3 kit with a similar focal length range (the wide angle doesn't go as wide) is much lighter - 650 grams, but uses severely compromised lenses. E-M5 mk II body (404 grams), 14-42 f3.5-5.6 body cap lens (91 grams), 9-18mm f4-5.6 (155 grams). The 14-42 is a very weak lens, and the only superior options are the relatively heavy Olympus 12-40 and Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 lenses.
Nikon Z7 (675 grams), 24-70 (500 grams), 14-30 (~500 grams) - 1675 grams with 1 battery and card. The Nikkor 14-30 exists only in prototype form, with no released weight. It is almost identical in size to the 24-70, so I used the same weight.
Sony A7r mkIII (657 grams), 24-105 (663 grams), 16-35 f4 (~518 grams) - 1838 grams with 1 battery and card (the "Zeiss" 24-70mm f4 is approximately 250 grams lighter, but a widely recognized much weaker lens).
Canon EOS-R (660 grams), 24-105 (700 grams), hypothetical 16-35 (541 grams) - 1901 grams with 1 battery and card. The "Canon RF 16-35" is a nonexistent lens - I calculated what it should weigh based off the Canon 16-35 f4L DSLR lens. The 24-105 RF is lighter than the 24-105 EF, so I subtracted the same percentage (almost 12%) from the weight of the 16-35 EF to get a potential weight for the RF wideangle zoom.
The weight difference from the lightest (Fuji) to the heaviest (Canon) option is about 35%. Once you add the weight of the extra battery to the Fuji, it's around 30%, and if you use the X-H1 body to gain IBIS, it's only about 20%. Micro 4/3 is in the middle of the range, although it has the most room to substitute lighter components at a cost in image quality and durability.
-
Just got my kitchen scales out:
Olympus OMD EM1ii w/ 12-40 1016g
Nikon D850 w/ 24-120 1780g
-
Just about what Olympus reports - you report a few grams heavier...
-
Interesting way to think about mirrorless vs. equally capable DSLR (in this case Z7 vs. D850) - the Z7 gets you an extra lens (and perhaps a battery, depending on the exact weight of the 14-30)... Jeremy weighed a D850 with the standard 24-120 zoom and got 1780g - a Z7 with the 14-30 and 24-70 should be just about the same weight (although the 24-120 is a relatively long standard zoom, and the variable aperture 24-85 is significantly lighter).
-
If I think of the way I hiked for many years with a Zeiss 100mm f2 macro on my D800, tripod and pano head, and I compare that to the equivalent a7rIII + 100mm f2.8 macro, the gain isn’t that great, around 300gr (only body weigth difference in fact), which is typically less than an adult’s day to day body weigth variation.
Add one extra battery for the Sony and the gap becomes negligible.
Those 300gr corresponds to 10% of the weight of water I used to be carrying for example.
Cheers,
Bernard
For me the weight savings isn't when packing into a location for landscapes...I still use my Canon mount Zeiss lenses for landscape. The big difference in weight savings with mirrorless is the weight of your camera and lens hanging off you neck / shoulder / hand while walking the streets / alleys / markets during travel. Going from a DSLR based travel kit to a mirrorless based travel kit...huge weight savings to the point I can now last an entire day out in the street and still enjoy taking photos at the end of the day.
-
For me the weight savings isn't when packing into a location for landscapes...I still use my Canon mount Zeiss lenses for landscape. The big difference in weight savings with mirrorless is the weight of your camera and lens hanging off you neck / shoulder / hand while walking the streets / alleys / markets during travel. Going from a DSLR based travel kit to a mirrorless based travel kit...huge weight savings to the point I can now last an entire day out in the street and still enjoy taking photos at the end of the day.
Yes, that is indeed a major value and the reason why I am considering a Z7 for similar cases.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very true when wearing a camera OVER a backpack... Spare lenses and batteries can live in relatively balanced places, even if they need to be accessed, but the camera on its neckstrap won't be in a good place no matter what. Really good straps help (I use BlackRapid, and I use a DSLR-grade Sport or Curve strap on my mirrorless, not the less padded CrossShot).
Dan
-
Weighing a camera and lens tells you nothing. What's important is the use to which you put the complete system.
When I switched from Canon 5D2 to Fuji XT-1 I got a lift in image quality for what I do - printing. I got a bigger lift in weight savings on international travel.
If you just compare the XT-1 and back up body with 2 lenses to the 5D2 with similar, it's about 1.7 kg compared to 2.9 kg.
But once you add L plates, filters and the assorted junk I carry, in my case it comes to being under 7kg for my camera carry-on compared to being well over 10kg. Remember the backpack is also now smaller and therefore lighter. Going through check-in is now stress free.
David
-
Weighing a camera and lens tells you nothing. What's important is the use to which you put the complete system.
When I switched from Canon 5D2 to Fuji XT-1 I got a lift in image quality for what I do - printing. I got a bigger lift in weight savings on international travel.
If you just compare the XT-1 and back up body with 2 lenses to the 5D2 with similar, it's about 1.7 kg compared to 2.9 kg.
But once you add L plates, filters and the assorted junk I carry, in my case it comes to being under 7kg for my camera carry-on compared to being well over 10kg. Remember the backpack is also now smaller and therefore lighter. Going through check-in is now stress free.
David
With some international carry on weight restrictions being enforced ( Vietnam and New Zealand ) and limited to a total of 7kg...every gm saved is important.
-
...
Fuji X-T2 (503 grams), 18-55 (308 grams), 10-24 (404 grams) - 1215 grams with 1 battery and card (add 173 grams for the X-H1, which has IBIS like the others).
Olympus E-M1 mk II (574 grams), 12-40 Pro (382 grams), 7-14 Pro (534 grams) - 1490 grams with 1 battery and card (save 170 grams by substituting E-M5 mk II, but go from probably the most durable body in this group to probably the least).
The lightest Micro 4/3 kit with a similar focal length range (the wide angle doesn't go as wide) is much lighter - 650 grams, but uses severely compromised lenses. E-M5 mk II body (404 grams), 14-42 f3.5-5.6 body cap lens (91 grams), 9-18mm f4-5.6 (155 grams). The 14-42 is a very weak lens, and the only superior options are the relatively heavy Olympus 12-40 and Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 lenses.
Nikon Z7 (675 grams), 24-70 (500 grams), 14-30 (~500 grams) - 1675 grams with 1 battery and card. The Nikkor 14-30 exists only in prototype form, with no released weight. It is almost identical in size to the 24-70, so I used the same weight.
Sony A7r mkIII (657 grams), 24-105 (663 grams), 16-35 f4 (~518 grams) - 1838 grams with 1 battery and card (the "Zeiss" 24-70mm f4 is approximately 250 grams lighter, but a widely recognized much weaker lens).
Canon EOS-R (660 grams), 24-105 (700 grams), hypothetical 16-35 (541 grams) - 1901 grams with 1 battery and card. The "Canon RF 16-35" is a nonexistent lens - I calculated what it should weigh based off the Canon 16-35 f4L DSLR lens. The 24-105 RF is lighter than the 24-105 EF, so I subtracted the same percentage (almost 12%) from the weight of the 16-35 EF to get a potential weight for the RF wideangle zoom.
The weight difference from the lightest (Fuji) to the heaviest (Canon) option is about 35%. Once you add the weight of the extra battery to the Fuji, it's around 30%, and if you use the X-H1 body to gain IBIS, it's only about 20%. Micro 4/3 is in the middle of the range, although it has the most room to substitute lighter components at a cost in image quality and durability.
As it happens I used the exact combo of X-T2 with 18-55 and 10-24 on an overnight backpacking trip a couple of years ago with good results. The overlap in the lenses makes for less frequent changes. My entire backpack was way too heavy though and I would have taken any weight loss. Problem with this combo vs the others is weather sealing. The 10-24 I would trust with a little exposure to moisture (I did, several times) but the 18-55 less so. The 16-80 WR can't come soon enough.
I maintain that for backpacking the Oly 12-100 is a great choice but if you really want to lose some weight you should look into the 2.8-4 zooms from Pana. They seem sharp enough, even though not necessarily as good as the pro Oly, have WR and are small and light.
Pana 8-18 F2.8-4 - 315g
Pana 12-60 F2.8-4 - 320g
-
IMO the 1st generation Panasonic m43 kit lens pair, 14–45 & 45–200mm, is underrated and deserves to be considered as a light & compact travel set…especially if, like me, you're not into ultra-wide but like having plenty of reach at the long end. I take the 20 & 42.5mm f/1.7s too for when I need/want some speed. Set the zooms to f/6.3 and fuggetaboutit.
Example pic via Olympus E-M1 and 14–45mm at 14mm & f/6.3.
-Dave-
-
Given the debate over whether or how EVF camera systems or smaller formats or other technological changes help with downsizing one's kit, here is some of what I see as helping for the kit I carry when traveling and walking (hiking or urban) with family and friends, so that it is not all about photography.
1) IS, and above all 5-axis IBIS, which is now better that in-lens IS [ILIS], works with all lenses, and can team-up with ILIS to be better than either is alone. For me this is mostly by often eliminating the need to carry a tripod or monopod on such outings, and by letting me photograph in limited light in situations where tripods and flash are not usable.
Also, every extra stop of IS allows lenses to be one stop lighter, like 24-70/4 instead of 24-70/2.8, at least in situations where a bigger aperture was only needed for speed, not artistic background blur.
A second option is a slower but wider-ranging zoom lenses, like swapping from 24-70/2.8 to 24-105/4: two wider ranging f/4 zooms could replace three f/2.8 zooms, or better yet a single lens might become enough instead of two, eliminating lens changes and the desire to carry a second body. (The Olympus 12-100/4 is very tempting!)
A third option is that the longer exposure times usable due to better IS could allow the kit to be downsized by shifting to a smaller format and thus using shorter lenses of the same minimum f-stop, like going from 24-70/2.8 in 35mm to 18-55/2.8 with APS-C or even to 12-40/2.8 in MFT — because each extra stop of IS halves the needed ISO speed needed at a given f-stop.
2) Improved per pixel low-light SNR performance at a given pixel size (through less read noise or higher QE or whatever), which through increasing usable ISO speed again allows all the above down-sizing options. (Improving per pixel performance by using larger pixels and sensors at the same technological level does not help much; higher usable ISO speed and thus higher acceptable f-stop are offset by the longer lenses needed to get as many pixels on the subject.)
3) Replacing the mirror and penta-prism by an EVF removes a bit of weight and bulk from the body, and also from some lenses through more flexible designs; mostly lenses offering wide-angles: compare Canon's 24-105/4 R or the Panasonic 12-60/2.8-4 for MFT to their SLR peers. But this is probably not the biggest factor!
-
The video I refer to is here :
https://youtu.be/PipegK--MwE
Just managed to see it. This is the problem that I keep commenting on with Fuji "pro" stuff, they are too heavy. There are people who then say that they are still lighter compared to what they are used to from DSLR but this video goes against it.
Now, outside of weather sealing I do question the need for very wide aperture zooms for a hiking trip; either way Fuji still doesn't have smaller WR zooms. The future 16-80 F4 should fix that in the most used range, provided that it had good image quality. The 8-16 F2.8, not so much.
-
DSLR's are a mature product having reached their peak. By changing over to mirrorless, camera manufacturers have created a brand new product that all Canon and Nikon admirers as well as new photography enthusiasts will switch to creating lots of new business for years to come. In a few years, no one will want to get caught using a DSLR. How passé.
-
Just managed to see it. This is the problem that I keep commenting on with Fuji "pro" stuff, they are too heavy. There are people who then say that they are still lighter compared to what they are used to from DSLR but this video goes against it.
Now, outside of weather sealing I do question the need for very wide aperture zooms for a hiking trip; either way Fuji still doesn't have smaller WR zooms. The future 16-80 F4 should fix that in the most used range, provided that it had good image quality. The 8-16 F2.8, not so much.
I just saw the video as well, and have to say an f/2.8 system for hiking is only for the young and strong, or the crazy.
Not including L plates and accessories, his system is just over 2.4 kg and the Fuji system I'd choose is 1.4 kg:
XT-2, 18-55 and the 55-200. I've carried them for 6 day hikes and they do just fine. Both these lenses are highly underrated. I've used the Canon lenses he mentions and the Fuji lenses are a match if you don't need the f/2.8 on the short zoom.
The Fuji 50-140 is a league above anything I've shot with in the past, but too big for putting in a hiking backpack. It's not just the weight to consider.
David
-
DSLR's are a mature product having reached their peak. By changing over to mirrorless, camera manufacturers have created a brand new product that all Canon and Nikon admirers as well as new photography enthusiasts will switch to creating lots of new business for years to come. In a few years, no one will want to get caught using a DSLR. How passé.
On the other hand I probably see more film SLRs in the streets of Tokyo’s posh districts now than I did 20 years ago... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DSLR's are a mature product having reached their peak. By changing over to mirrorless, camera manufacturers have created a brand new product that all Canon and Nikon admirers as well as new photography enthusiasts will switch to creating lots of new business for years to come. In a few years, no one will want to get caught using a DSLR. How passé.
Yes, mirrorless will be a boom for the manufactures for years to come.
-
Yes, mirrorless will be a boom for the manufactures for years to come.
With SLRs making an eventual comeback (on the used market) as retrochic. ;)
-Dave-