Thinking of downsizing for travel. Any suggestions?

[BrianA61]

I got back from a 6 week trip to Vietnam. I only took one of my DSLR bodies, 1 lens (24-105), and misc accessories like a couple of extra batteries, memory cards, an external HD for backup. I also took my small P&S for some short quick trips here and there. The main problem I got tired of was the weight of my Canon 5D II with lens. It is heavy and bulky and is starting to make me think of downsizing without losing quality of the photos. I liked taking my P&S out with me since it small, compact and light. However, the quality isn't near as good as my "big" camera. I'm looking for suggestions into a more compact but still versatile camera. Maybe one of the Sony mirrorless? I'm also considering selling all of my bulky, heavy gear and just go with the more compact one for all of my photography needs. Thanks for any suggestions including pros and cons.

[billtils]

Buy one of the better (photo) quality mobile phones.

Going mirrorless will give you a lighter body but you still have to stick a lens on it and nobody has invented light weight glass.

[rpcrowe]

I really like my Sony A6600 Crop Frame camera for travel. The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens meshes perfectly with the small A6600 for travel.

The camera/lens combination weighs only 793 grams (1.74 pounds) and provides an equivalent 27-75mm focal range. The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens runs $500 USD at B&H. I purchased mine used for $350 USD.
A Sony 85mm f/1.8 lens adds 371 grams and is a great head and shoulders portrait combination. Other light weight lenses which mesh with the Sony A6xxx cameras are the Sony 70-350mm which gives you great reach (105-525mm equivalent) and the 10mm f/2 Samyang/Rokinon which provides UWA capabilities and these Sam/Rok 10mm lenses are available in both manual and auto focus models.
There are also some wide range telephoto lenses for the crop sensor Sony cameras such as the Sony 18-105mm or 18-200mm...
The A6xxx series cameras can be had a quite low cost if you select a used older model such as the A6000 or A6300.
If you really want a super light weight and very inexpensive combo - a used A6000 with the very decent 16-50mm kit lens is a choice to consider.

[pnodrog]

We went on holiday two weeks ago and at our first town I purchased a second hand cropped sensor Nikon Z 50 that I had seen advertised online. It came with kit 16-50mm and 50-250mm lenses. My "serious" camera was virtually unused. Delighted with the weight saving and performance. I found the 16-50mm a bit restrictive and will probably eventually change it for a 16-80mm lens.

I only kept to Nikon as with an adapter my other lenses will be totally compatible and I have no doubt I would have been equally as pleased with similar models from other manufacturers.

The reason for buying it was I like to have a cheaper camera that I leave in my car glove box. In the past these have been bridge or P&S cameras but I much prefer a
DSLR type camera and with careful lens selection the weight difference is not too great.

[DanK]

IMHO, this is a real dilemma.

When I have taken only a really small camera, like a point and shoot that I could slip into a pocket, I've regretted it. I did this years ago when my son took me to Iceland for my 60th birthday, and I missed out on what might have been a lot of good prints.

On the other hand, I really don't want to lug my FF gear.

My compromise for quite a while was the original Lumix LX-100, which is small enough to fit into a coat pocket or fanny pack. the original was only 12 MPX, while version II was about twice that, I think. The version 2 would be a better option, but I believe Panasonic has discontinued them. With luck and a good bit of postprocessing, I got some images that were fine and worth printing, even though they were (to me) visibly inferior to what I would have gotten with the 5D III I then had, for example:





The first of these I was able to print at 11x19 even though it was a substantial crop from 12 MP, but it took a lot of work.

If money were no object, I might buy the new OM-1 with the kit 12-40 f/2.8 lens and perhaps carry the new 40-150 f/4, which is not their best lens in that range but is very small and light. However, that's a LOT bigger than the Lumix, and it's a great deal of money. I don't travel enough anymore to make that kind of expense easy to justify.

[BobGilbody]

Use a mono pod as a walking stick [ pole ] and attach the camera to a harness rather than have it put weight on your neck. Gear these days is not that heavy imo. Photographing birds I can either cross the Andes by frog or set up a chair and bag hide, flask of coffee, and snacks. Camera and lens on a tripod with gimbal.

As Dan suggests get the Olympus set up. They have been selling that is light weight for decades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCVcyDF7Ms

[billtils]

IMHO, this is a real dilemma.

When I have taken only a really small camera, like a point and shoot that I could slip into a pocket, I've regretted it. I did this years ago when my son took me to Iceland for my 60th birthday, and I missed out on what might have been a lot of good prints.

Your post adds a very worthwhile element to the discussion Dan. What we intent to do with the shot we have just taken has a huge impact on the gear we can or should use. One of the better photo quality upmarket mobile phones will suit today's digital natives perfectly and be more than good enough for a photographer whose intended display medium is digital - just look at what's on one of the several iPhone groups on flickr. Printing is another story as is creativity that is under the control of the photographer before pressing the shutter.

[rpcrowe]

The problems for me with using my iPhone as a camera are two-fold:
1. First and foremost, I do not enjoy using an LCD as my primary viewfinder - especially in brightly lit areas
2. The small selection of focal lengths and apertures available.

[loosecanon]

My current solution to not take my full frame kit is my EOS M kit. The lenses are not very wide aperture, but in turn thei are small and reasonbly compact. With modern sensors we can use higher ISOs. I can get two M cameras and four lenses into a small bag. This will do for the nxt five years!

Even my full frame I mainly have f4 rather than 2.8 lenses. Glass is heavy.

[DanK]

Even my full frame I mainly have f4 rather than 2.8 lenses

Me too. My only FF lenses faster than f/4.0 are my macro and a nifty 50 I rarely use. I almost never find I miss the extra stop, and f/2.8 lenses can cost and weigh twice as much as f/4.0 lenses.

[Abitconfused]

We went on holiday two weeks ago and at our first town I purchased a second hand cropped sensor Nikon Z 50 that I had seen advertised online. It came with kit 16-50mm and 50-250mm lenses. My "serious" camera was virtually unused. Delighted with the weight saving and performance. I found the 16-50mm a bit restrictive and will probably eventually change it for a 16-80mm lens.

I only kept to Nikon as with an adapter my other lenses will be totally compatible and I have no doubt I would have been equally as pleased with similar models from other manufacturers.

The reason for buying it was I like to have a cheaper camera that I leave in my car glove box. In the past these have been bridge or P&S cameras but I much prefer a
DSLR type camera and with careful lens selection the weight difference is not too great.

I really like the Z 50 with the Z 14-30mm lens. It is a quite sharp and light combo. After I bought the Z 50, I decided I liked the way Nikon was going with the Z line and figured a full frame Z was in my future. Nikon designed, I have been told, the Z lenses to be quite compatible with any Z camera.

[pnodrog]

I really like the Z 50 with the Z 14-30mm lens. It is a quite sharp and light combo. After I bought the Z 50, I decided I liked the way Nikon was going with the Z line and figured a full frame Z was in my future. Nikon designed, I have been told, the Z lenses to be quite compatible with any Z camera.

I may get the Z 14-30mm lens. At the moment I am about to try the FTZ adapter with my Sigma 12-24mm lens. I got the 12-24mm second hand and found it a little soft at the edges on my FX camera even though they claim it is an FX lens. However in DX format it seems fine and adequately wide. If it is not up to scratch on the Z 50 I will get a Z wide angle lens of some sort.

It seems we maybe on a similar path as I bought the Z 50 on the assumption that my next full frame camera will be one of the new models I hope Nikon will release soon.

[mikey98e]

I like to use my F80 with a 50mm lens. In fact that is what I'll use today when my grandchildren come for Thanksgiving dinner.
-mike

[rpcrowe]

IMO - when considering equipment to lighten a load, lenses have always been the bump in the road. What use is there to carry a small and lightweight body if you attach a large and heavy lens.

I think that Sigma understands this problem and therefore introduced the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens for Sony E, Fuji and Leica mirrorless cameras. Unfortunately Canon and Nikon users are left out.

When I shot Canon, I carried a pair of 7D or 7D2 crop sensor DSLR cameras with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. I shot with these two lenses all over the world and never needed any other lenses (except for macro and wildlife photography). However neither the 7D cameras nor these two lenses could be considered light. But, I was younger and in better health - so the extra weight was not as much of a problem as it is now!

My Sony A6600 has a very small footprint when the Sigma 18-50mm lens is mounted. I wish that someone wound introduce a small footprint 70-200mm f/4 E-mount lens for APSC cameras. I have three telephoto lenses for my Sony cameras: Sony 85mm f/1.8, Sony 70-350mm f/4.5-5.6, and Sony 70-200mm f/4 OSS. With the exception of the 85mm f/1.8 lens, these are not as lightweight as I would like and the 70-350mm has too small an aperture to be used as an efficient portrait lens.

Hopefully, Sigma will introduce some other small footprint, contemporary lenses for APSC format cameras.

[Manfred M]

I am still carrying my rather long in the tooth D810, but now travel with only one lens, the 28 - 300mm. I tend to leave the battery grip off as well. The heavy duty tripod only comes when I am driving and am not walking long distances. Those steps along make the weight quite manageable for travel, as I tended to take at least 3 lenses along before getting the 28-300mm.

I may look at upgrading to the Z8, when it comes out; more for the features than the reduced weight.

I am still debating whether or not I switch to the medium format Fujifilm GFX 100S versus sticking with Nikon. The Hasselblad X2D is also under consideration. Both are virtually identical in weight to the D810 and I am spending so much time in the studio these days, that the larger sensor is more important than the weight.

[BrianA61]

IMO - when considering equipment to lighten a load, lenses have always been the bump in the road. What use is there to carry a small and lightweight body if you attach a large and heavy lens.

I think that Sigma understands this problem and therefore introduced the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens for Sony E, Fuji and Leica mirrorless cameras. Unfortunately Canon and Nikon users are left out.

When I shot Canon, I carried a pair of 7D or 7D2 crop sensor DSLR cameras with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. I shot with these two lenses all over the world and never needed any other lenses (except for macro and wildlife photography). However neither the 7D cameras nor these two lenses could be considered light. But, I was younger and in better health - so the extra weight was not as much of a problem as it is now!

My Sony A6600 has a very small footprint when the Sigma 18-50mm lens is mounted. I wish that someone wound introduce a small footprint 70-200mm f/4 E-mount lens for APSC cameras. I have three telephoto lenses for my Sony cameras: Sony 85mm f/1.8, Sony 70-350mm f/4.5-5.6, and Sony 70-200mm f/4 OSS. With the exception of the 85mm f/1.8 lens, these are not as lightweight as I would like and the 70-350mm has too small an aperture to be used as an efficient portrait lens.

Hopefully, Sigma will introduce some other small footprint, contemporary lenses for APSC format cameras.

I also have a 7D body and use the Canon 70-300 DO with it, which is a VERY short lens for the optics. It is also somewhat lighter than my 24-105, but, that particular lens isn't very conducive to use as a "main" lens.

[inkista]

... I liked taking my P&S out with me since it small, compact and light. However, the quality isn't near as good as my "big" camera. I'm looking for suggestions into a more compact but still versatile camera. Maybe one of the Sony mirrorless?...

I think the big question is whether you're still willing to haul a bag with lenses with a mirrorless IL system, or if you actually just want to go with something pocketable... and what kind of sensor size/max. aperture/zoom range/feature compromises you're willing to make for weight/bulk reduction. And, as always, budget.

Obviously, fixed lens eliminates the whole camera bag. And you could, for example, get a Sony RX1R II, which is full frame with a fixed 35/2 lens. So here you're giving up zoom capability, and low cost, but you still have full frame, in a much smaller format. Or APS-C with a Fuji X100 series or Ricoh Gr. But again, a fixed prime wide lens (35e/2 for the X100, 28e/2.8 for the Grs).

You could go with a Canon R5, which is pretty much the 5D IV successor, with its RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 kit lens, instead of the f/4L version of that lens. Or a Sony A7 IV with the 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, and get something more dRebel-sized. But if you go for the pro-lens 24-105s, then you're not saving much weight/bulk at all. Mirrorless bodies are smaller. But equivalent lenses, not so much. You only save bulk with lenses if you go for slower max. apertures, pancake lenses, or smaller sensors.

Going to APS-C or micro four-third, can see a dramatic size reduction, particularly when combined with pancake lenses. But now you've lost full-frame sensor performance.

And. You can also go smaller with 1"-format sensor compacts, like the RX100 VII or Canon Powershot G7 X II. You're now giving up a flash hotshoe and in the case of the Powershot a viewfinder, but the lens on the RX100 VII is a 24-200e f/2.8-4.5 and on the G7 X II it's 24-100e f/1.8-f/2.8, while the RX100 V is 24-70e f/1.8-2.8.

I also shoot a 5Dii usually with a 24-105 f/4L (I). I also found it big and heavy. I purchased some entry-level lenses and a Panasonic G3 back in the day to be my "go light"/cheap bag. My bag went from 20 lbs. to 5 lbs. And my glass went from Ls to consumer-grade slow zooms. MFT is now my primary system. But I do not have the same performance. I'm okay with that, but I do occasionally flirt with the idea of moving to Canon EOS R, Fuji X, or Sony E mount.

I will add one note for Fuji that's a little outside the box. As an X100T shooter, the hybrid viewfinder/pseudo rangefinder experience on an X100T and the vintage style controls, along with Fuji's color science makes it probably the most fun camera I've ever shot. But it goes up another level when paired with my Instax SP-2 printer (srsly). It's kind of like having a fixed-lens 35/2 rangefinder that can also print business-card-sized polaroids. For travel? It can be good to have an icebreaker like that and you still have the digital file to print big and hang on a wall (unlike using an Instax or Polaroid camera). You don't have to shoot Fuji to use an Instax printer, but then you have to transfer images from the camera to the phone to use it, and it's a few extra steps vs. shooting with a Fuji body that can print directly to the printer.

[lunarbo]

I was a big fan of my old Canon 80d and the EF 18-200 lens. This one lens combo took me all over the world and enabled me to take (say)the whole building then a close up of the weathervane on top

I have since gone mirrorless and use an R6 with the RF 24-240. Much the same principle really but with the added advantage that the R6 copes really well with low light and the new RF lenses are in my opinion, a step up from the EF range.

I know that the iphone takes brilliant shots but I can't ever see me depending on a phone for my images!

[Chataignier]

Fuji. For most situations I use my Fuji X-T3 (the new X-T5 is even better) with the 16-80mm f4 and the 70-300mm f4.5/5.6. Just 2 lenses to cover most things. Half the weight of a classic FF reflex and comparable lenses. Yes it's APS, but I regularly print to 60/40cm (24" by 16" in old money) and the results are impeccable. Do you really need to go beyond that ?
In low light I can use the X-T3 up to 3200 ISO without major pp surgery and can go up to 12800 at the cost of needing to process in DXO Pure Raw. That's an improvement on most FF reflex.

For macro, studio portraits and other planned activities I've a range of fixed focus lenses but I dont carry them around. I've also the 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 for wildlife. I wont pretend it's light, but it's a superb lens and for extreme situations it gives me effectively 1000mm at f8 with the x1.4 extender.

I changed from Canon reflex about 3 yrs ago for the same reason you describe - weight and bulk. A body plus a 24-70mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 were crippling to carry around all day.

[DanK]

A body plus a 24-70mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 were crippling to carry around all day.

I wouldn't say crippling, at least for me, but less comfortable and more annoying each year. And I also carry a tripod, and even using a lightweight carbon-fiber tripod and a small (Markins) head, that adds appreciably more weight. One reason I'm considering switching is that a few of the new cameras offer such good IBIS, when coupled with the right lenses, that I could dispense with the tripod under many circumstances. The XT-4 and OM-1 both fall into this category.

Re the XT-5: as I posted before, I'm skeptical of 40 MPX in an APS-C sensor because of the tiny photosites. I would want to wait for tests showing dynamic range and noise at moderate ISOs. Technology has reached the point where that sort of pixel count is fine on a FF sensor (e.g., R5), but I would want to see evidence that it's OK at the smaller size. And in addition, given any pixel count diffraction is more of an issue as sensor size gets smaller. I don't see much benefit for printing the sizes I do (up to 17x22) except in the case of severe cropping.

I've shot a lot with APS-C and am entirely comfortable with it, so I think the XT-4 would be a great choice for me if Adobe could resolve its X-Trans problems. Maybe they will by the time I'm ready to spring for a new body.