Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)  (Read 7176 times)

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2018, 07:31:07 am »

- 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.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2018, 08:31:54 am »

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 :-)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2018, 09:16:32 am »

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

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2018, 12:29:25 pm »

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.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2018, 02:10:14 pm »

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
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 02:13:57 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2018, 02:17:35 pm »

The video I refer to is here :

https://youtu.be/PipegK--MwE
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2018, 03:01:26 pm »

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.


« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 03:09:06 pm by Dan Wells »
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2018, 03:16:08 pm »

Just got my kitchen scales out:

Olympus OMD EM1ii w/ 12-40 1016g
Nikon D850 w/ 24-120 1780g
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2018, 04:09:13 pm »

Just about what Olympus reports - you report a few grams heavier...
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2018, 06:24:26 pm »

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).
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2018, 07:34:40 pm »

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.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2018, 08:48:34 pm »

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

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2018, 09:21:52 pm »

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
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2018, 09:49:14 pm »

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
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2018, 10:51:18 pm »

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.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2018, 09:07:32 am »


...

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

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2018, 04:40:49 pm »

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-
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 08:48:23 pm by Telecaster »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the HUGE wait for CaNikon mirrorless, and what helps with downsizing
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2018, 09:01:05 pm »

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!
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 09:06:44 pm by BJL »
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2018, 11:03:35 pm »

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.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Why the HUGE wait for Canikon mirrorless? (and was it worth it)
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2018, 11:43:48 pm »

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. 
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up