No real weight savings from mirrorless

[Manfred M]

I like my Z 50 using Z 50mm or Z 85mm that I plan to sell my D810. Either of these combinations is so sharp that I morn for them when using any other camera. The weight is so much less than the D810 and FX lenses. And Photoshop can give you a 2X "Enhancement." See examples... https://www.digitalphoto1to1.com/NikonCameraZ50.html

The weight saving is primarily moving from a full-frame to a crop frame sensor, so it is not a "fair" comparison.

I saved around 500 g / 1 lb in weight when I went from an APS-C to mFT sensor camera (which was mirrorless) for a 2-month trip to south Asia. The difference in image quality was minimal for web postings, but when it comes to medium to large prints, the difference between a full-frame camera and either a mFT or APS-C camera are quite noticeable.

[Martin A]

I borrowed my sister-in-law's Z50 for an afternoon of evaluation a few weeks ago. Very nice camera. The weight savings compared to my D610 or D750 was not as great as I thought it might be, yet it was quite noticeable. I am not about to "upgrade" my equipment anytime soon though because of several items I found objectionable. I much prefer optical viewfinders over the Z50's electronic finder. The rear monitor/touchscreen was seriously washed out by the bright afternoon sun. The battery lasted only 25-30% of what it would have in either of my cameras (all use the same battery). Only one memory card slot available on the Z50. However, if the weight savings is important to the user, and they have the cash for a mirrorless system, I can understand making the switch.

[DanK]

But as Manfred pointed out, the Z50 is a crop-sensor camera, so it's apples to oranges. Much of the weight savings is the smaller sensor and all that goes with it, not mirrorless per se.

I also prefer an optical viewfinder to the only EVF I have, but that's an old and not very good EVF, so it's probably not a good indication of what I might find if I tried something like a Canon R6 or R5.

[Tronhard]

I don't have any kids of my own. So does that give me a pass?

[rpcrowe]

As I mentioned previously, the weight savings of a Sony APSC crop camera (A6xxx Series) with a normal angle f/2.8 telephoto lens like the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 as as opposed to a Canon 7D Mark-2 DSLR with 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is considerable. This is an apples to apples comparison.

OTOH, when comparing a full-frame DSLR to a Sony mirrorless DSLR, each with a medium angle zoom, the weight savings is less pronounced and depends entirely on which camera bodies and which lenses are used for the comparison.

I found that a Sony A6600 and a Sony A73 is a very nice combination. The advantage of the Sony is that both APSC and full-frame lenses can be used both APSC and full-frame cameras - albeit the full frame camera will be shot in APSC format.

New lenses (both OEM and Third Party) are appearing rapidly for both APSC and full-frame e-Mount cameras. I am particularly fond of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for both format Sony cameras and, if I were younger (81 now) I would probably think seriously of the Mk.2 version of that lens..

[Tronhard]

As I mentioned previously, the weight savings of a Sony APSC crop camera (A6xxx Series) with a normal angle f/2.8 telephoto lens like the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 as as opposed to a Canon 7D Mark-2 DSLR with 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is considerable. This is an apples to apples comparison.

First I appreciate that you are looking for an APS-C body with a lens that offers a focal range of 17-55 +/- and f/2.8.

I think taking the EOS 7DII is a bit harsh because it is the prosumer level body and thus built like a tank - one could take the EOS 80 or 90D, both of which are lighter. But if one widens the search criteria, for me, the closest APS-C comparison is the EOS M5 or M6II body, so if I take these bodies (which are MILCs and equivalent to the Canon EOS 80D and 90D respectively), and newer than the 7DII, and add lenses, you get the following:

Weights measured in g
Canon M series bodies with native lenses
EOS M6MkII			408
M5 Body Weight		427
EF-M 11-22mm	220	647	628
EF-M 15-45mm	130	557	538
EF-M 18-55mm	210	637	618
EF-M 18-150mm	300	727	708
EF-M 55-200mm	260	687	668
Ef-M 22	105	532	513
EF-M 28	130	557	538
EF-M32	235	662	643
M5 body with adapter and EF 17-55
E-M to EF adapter	105
Canon EF-S 17-55	645	1177	1158
Canon EOS ##D bodies
Canon EF-S 17-55	645
EOS 90D	701		1346
EOS 80D	650		1295
SONY Kit as Described
Sony A6500 body	503
Sony 18-50	395	898

First, it is obvious that if you absolutely NEED the f/2.8 aperture, then the combination is still significantly heavier than the Sony. No argument there...

But a lot depends on what you use your camera for. I would use a super light camera for travel, multi-day hikes and maybe the (extremely) rare moments when I do street photography. So in the majority of FOR ME a much more valid comparison for a light camera system that suits our shooting profile, which is assumedly what we are looking for here, is the M series of bodies (also APS-C) and the native EF-M lenses. Which is what I DO shoot with if I want something very compact and light. They were originally much-maligned, but over time have gained more respect as they have ' bedded in' with those for whom they were intended and the R-series bodies have put them in perspective. For my purposes they work perfectly well.

Really, however, I still prefer my larger cameras - I actually LIKE the weight, and for the type of lenses I normally shoot with (long tele zooms) you have to have the heavy glass in any case, so a body with a bit of weight balances things out a bit - I add the battery grips for that reason as well as the extra capacity and dual controls. I am waiting for someone to come out with quality glass for super tele zooms that will reduce the weight to a point I would want a really small body to balance the lens.

Considering the different mount allows me to think outside the 'Canon box', why would I not choose to go to Sony?
I absolutely hate their menu systems! I chose the Sony RX-10MkIV for an all-in-one camera, as I consider it to be the best 1" superzoom bridge camera out there, but I have to suffer the tortuous menu system to do so.