No real weight savings from mirrorless

[DanK]

At least in my case.

This week a close friend told me that he is replacing his Nikon D800 with a Z6ii. This got me thinking again: just how much weight could I save by going mirrorless? My impression is that the weight savings people notice is because of format, not mirrorless per se, although it clearly depends on the brand and model. I decided to calculate this for my own equipment.

My main body is a Canon 5D mark IV, and my most common walk-around lens is the 24-105 f/4 L II. That combination is 1595 g, or roughly 3.5 pounds. At this age, I would love to have something that weighs less. The replacement body is the R5, and Canon has an R-mount replacement for the 24-105. That pair weighs only 10% less, 1438g. If I do down a notch to the R6 (more advanced in some respects because it's newer, but with much lower resolution, less weather sealing, and no top LCD), the weight savings is a bit more because the chassis has more plastic, but still only 13%. Specifically, the savings is 157 g with the R5 and 215 g with the R6.

But that's not all of it. Unless I replace all of my lenses--and most of mine are excellent and in mint condition--I need to add an adapter. The simplest one weighs 110 g.

Then I went a step farther: what if I splurged and replaced my EF 70-200 f/4, my second-most used lens, with the RF replacement? That would save only an 85 g. It would also not require the 110g adapter, but I would have to carry that anyway if I carry any other lenses.

Bottom line for me is that if weight really becomes a problem, I'll need to consider a smaller-format camera. However, even that would only help a lot if I switched brands because it now seems like the new Canon APS-C model, if it actually is coming, is probably R-mount.

And, of course, I lost one excuse to upgrade.

[xpatUSA]

Bottom line for me is that if weight really becomes a problem, I'll need to consider a smaller-format camera.

Dan, that prompted me to compare a couple of my cameras, each with an equivalent 24-70mm zoom on it.

Sigma SD9 DSLR: 47.4 oz

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 mirrorless: 25.7 oz almost half the weight.

Have you ever considered or owned micro four-thirds?

[DanK]

Both. I have a small Lumix LX-100 (first generation) that I sometimes carry when I don't know that I will need a camera or simply can't carry my big one. It's MFT. I find it adequate in good lighting if I don't have to crop much. However, it's an old sensor, and I suspect that some modern MFT sensors, including perhaps the one in the LX-100 II, are better, so I shouldn't judge from that.

For the time being, I'll stick with the Canon gear I have, which I like a great deal. However, if it the weight becomes too big of a problem as I get older, I'll check out whatever's then current in both APS-C and MFT. If I had to make a switch now, I might end up with a Fuji APS-C camera.

Although I'm not ready to jump, I just looked at the Fuji XT-4 with the 16-80mm kit lens (24-120 equivalent). The sensor is a 1.5x crop. The weight is 966g, just shy of a 40% reduction from my current equipment. That's where the real weight savings is.

[Manfred M]

You've reached a similar conclusion to me, Dan.

My last big trip before COVID was a month in South America with just the D810 and a 28-300mm lens. I left the battery grip at home, as well as most other accessories.

The Z7ii mirrorless weighs 615g and the D810 is 880g, so my total weight savings are only 265g. If I stick with the current 28-300mm (no equivalent on the market yet), I would need the convertor which weighs in at 125g, which reduces the weight savings to 140g.

I expect I will be upgrading when the next generation body is released, but it will be for the other technological improvements, not because of weight savings.

Just as an aside, I am just as likely to pick up the FujiFilm GFX100s, a 100 MP, medium format mirrorless camera that weighs in at 819g.

[Tronhard]

Well... There was a time when I could not carry a DSLR and lenses (I could barely walk, actually) during that period I got the EOS M5 cameras and lenses as they at least allowed me to take photos - important for morale.

Things changed drastically when I had the miracle of a knee replacement and I'm back to full operational capability. Of the three blessings that photography offers me: namely being actively observant, a creative balance of the technical and artistic (so using left and right brain), there is the third: that one has to be active in order to get off the couch to take photographs (well, for most of us anyway). I mean no disrespect to those who may be mobility limited - remember, I've been there...

So, I revel in the opportunity to use my big, heavy FF and other DSLRs (and the R5 and R6 MILCs), which all have battery grips (I like the balance and the extra controls), and as I shoot on the long telephoto end, my Canon EF 100-400 MkII, Sigma 150-600c, and most of all Sigma 60-600s lenses are hefty beasts. I see it as a challenge to make me stay fit.

I'm going to be 70 next birthday, but right now I use the weight of these units to encourage me to train for photography, in an athletic sense. I do weights, New Body, STEP and walk to keep myself fit. Sure, photography is a major incentive, but I also recognize that I might live a bit longer, but will also likely be more functional for that period.

One thing I DID invest in, to make long periods of standing with a couple of kg of camera at the ready, was an iFootage Cobra 2 C180-II monopod/tripod. (see: DPReview TV: iFootage Cobra 2 monopod long-term review: Digital Photography Review). I saw this on the DPR site, and while it was presented for its benefits for videography, I immediately saw the benefits for wildlife stills photography, and even use in places like museums or galleries - where some accept monopods but not tripods. It works brilliantly and with a ball head top and bottom, I can position the camera where I want very quickly. Disclaimer: I have no commercial or financial interest in this product except for paying for one!

[lunaticitizen]

I did a similar calculation when I replaced my two Nikon cameras with a Sony.

One was a Nikon D810: 980 g (2.2 lbs).
I replaced it with a Sony a7R IV: 665 g (1.5 lbs).

My most used lens was the NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G: 305 g (0.7 lbs).
I replaced it with the Sony FE 35mm F1.8 : 280 g (0.6 lbs), and now Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 35mm F2: 352 g (0.8 lbs).

Weight saving with the Voigtlander lens: 268 g (0.6 lbs)
Not much, but I think it's worth it in my case?

My other camera was a 1405 g (3.1 lbs) behemoth I didn't bother to replace.

Of course there are more benefits changing to mirrorless which aren't related to the topic of this thread, so I shall refrain from elaborating further.

[xpatUSA]

Have you ever considered or owned micro four-thirds?

Both. I have a small Lumix LX-100 (first generation) that I sometimes carry when I don't know that I will need a camera or simply can't carry my big one. It's MFT.

Excellent. I have the original LX1 of that series with the CCD sensor which has a native 16:9 ratio ... quite fun to shoot.

I find it adequate in good lighting if I don't have to crop much. However, it's an old sensor, and I suspect that some modern MFT sensors, including perhaps the one in the LX-100 II, are better, so I shouldn't judge from that.

Yes, they are indeed. I also have the DC-G9 MFT: 20MP with focus peaking and in-body image stabilization. Haven't tried it but it can also shoot 80MP with pixel-shifting - however, sheer MP is not my bag.

[Taniere29]

Bonjour,
je viens de passer d'un Canon 7D MarkII (APS-C) > 1 Kg boitier nu et 1800g avec un 18-400 à un Panasonix Lumix GX9 (MFT) 470 g boitier nu et 760 g avec un 14-140. Les objectifs ne sont pas comparables mais la différence de fatigue du bras à la fin de la journée ...oui!
Taniere29

[Tronhard]

Hello,I just went from a Canon 7D MarkII (APS-C)> 1 Kg bare case and 1800g with an 18-400 to a Panasonix Lumix GX9 (MFT) 470 g bare case and 760 g with a 14-140. The goals are not comparable but the difference in arm fatigue at the end of the day ... yes!Taniere29

Bonjour,
je viens de passer d'un Canon 7D MarkII (APS-C) > 1 Kg boitier nu et 1800g avec un 18-400 à un Panasonix Lumix GX9 (MFT) 470 g boitier nu et 760 g avec un 14-140. Les objectifs ne sont pas comparables mais la différence de fatigue du bras à la fin de la journée ...oui!
Taniere29

[Taniere29]

hi
thank you Tronhard for translating my message.
Regards

[rpcrowe]

There can be a considerable savings - especially in the APSC sensor cameras.

I replaced my Canon 7D Mark 2 camera and 100-400mm Mark 2 lens (2550 G total weight) with the Sony A6600 and 70-350mm lens (1128 G total weight). The Sony lens is 50mm shorter at the longest end but, 30mm wider at the shorter end. The Sony is also about a half stop slower at maximum length but the Sony package weighs 1422 Grams less or less than half than the weight of the Canon package. That is, IMO, a decent trade off.

I used the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on my Canon as my standard mid range zoom lens, while a good replacement for that lens is the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8. The Canon package weighs 1555 G while the Sony setup would weigh 1028 G or 2/3 of the weight of the Canon with an extra 15mm on the long end!

[Tronhard]

One might save a bit on the bodies but the lenses are another matter. Yes, from a Canon user's perspective, some of the new telephoto lenses and zooms are lighter than their DSLR equivalents, but the zooms come at a significant cost. So, for some of those units I am glad to be able to use my legacy EF lenses, albeit with an adapter.

That said, I am not giving up my DSLRs and will continue to shoot with them, when appropriate for as long as possible!

[xpatUSA]

In my world of interchangeable lens cameras, MILCs outnumber DSLRs two-to-one. More to the point, I won't be buying another DSLR unless I have to replace the exact model that I own, i.e. I would get another Sigma SD9 if mine broke ...

[inkista]

Yes, pretty much also my conclusion. While you might shave some weight/bulk off on the body, equivalent lenses will mostly stay the same for the same format, and going from APS-C dSLR to full-frame mirrorless doesn't save you much. You'll mostly only save weight/size if you go with slower lenses or a smaller sensor.

The "myth" of saving bulk/weight in going to mirrorless mostly comes from the early days when MFT was the first/only mirrorless system, and full-frame dSLR folks moved to it. I did it, and went from a 20 lb. bag to a 5 lb. one (5Dii w/24-105L to a Panasonic G3+14-42 kit lens) but I also went from full frame to 4/3", and from pro glass to consumer-grade glass to shed the weight.

However, the change can be dramatic if you go down in format size and get a pancake lens. It's what makes a Fuji X100 series camera so beloved: the APS-C sensor and the pancake lens in combination.

[xpatUSA]

I used to have a Praktica MTL-3 film camera - small, light, portable and my three lenses weren't the heaviest on the planet. I wasn't a "photographer" back then - just snaps and color negs developed at K-Mart.

My first digital was a Kodak point-and-shoot. Then I wanted to take better pictures of my then hobby of watches fixed and re-sold on ebay.

So I bought a Nikon D50 and was astounded at the weight of the thing! ... until I replaced it with an early Sigma DSLR which I now fondly call a "house-brick" due to it's shape and even more heft. At my age, exercise is good for me but the Lumix G9 is so much easier to carry and use ...

[DanK]

Out of curiousity, I just weighed the bag I often carry. It's a lightweight LowePro backpack containing a Canon 5D IV, 24-105 f/4 II, 70-200 f/4 II, 100mm macro, 1.4x telextender, and a lightweight tripod and head (Oben carbon fiber and Markins head). It includes a few odds and ends that don't add much. Total weight: approximately 17 pounds, 7.7 kg.

Apart from the weight and the lack of eye AF that I would get with a modern mirrorless (which I would love for candids of kids), I love this gear. Canon's ergonomics and menu sytem are superb, and having used xD bodies for years as the menus evolved (50D, 7D, 5D III, 5D IV), I find the controls and menus entirely intuitive. And, of course, it performs better than the person behind it. I'll sorely miss it if I eventually have to go to a different, lighter-weight system with a smaller sensor. If I had to make that jump right now, I would probably end up with a Fuji XT-4.

[rpcrowe]

The weigh savings is not the only reason I switched to Sony. I purchased the Canon 6D2 for its facial focus capability but, I soon learned that, although I loved the face focus - the morphodite focusing system of the 6D2 was only viable when using live view. Live view is difficult for me to use in daylight and the 6D2 focusing system (which was borrowed in-tact from the crop-sensor Sony line and only covered a small percentage of the frame really sucked) really sucks.

I picked up a used Sony A6500 with a Canon lens adapter. My plans were to use my Canon glass on the Sony camera. However I wasn't happy with the Canon glass adapted to the Sony and tried a couple of native Sony lenses. I loved the focusing capability so I began accumulating e-mount lenses.

My big problem with the Sony line at first was that there was no decently priced and decent weight medium range telephoto lens available. The 28-70mm f/4 Sony-Zeiss was slower that I wanted and the IQ was not all that great.

When Tamron introduced their 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lens for the Sony and Sony introduced their full frame A7iii - it was a marriage made in Heaven. The combination weighs 1200 grams as opposed to the Canon 5D Mark 4 and 24-70mm f/2.8 which weighs 400 grams more. However for those photographers who seek a small full frame combination, the Sony A7C plus the Tamron 28-75mm lens weighs 1159 grams (actually not all that much less than the A7iii combo).

BTW: for a really light weight travel setup the Sony A6400 combined with the new Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN lens weighs 693 grams. For us metrically challenged Yanks, that is a bit over a pound and a half...

[Abitconfused]

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

[tclune]

the big weight savings will be from how much lighter your wallet is.

[pnodrog]

the big weight savings will be from how much lighter your wallet is.

I'm not sure how ethical it is to keep pouring your kids piggy banks into your wallet. I suppose it's justified if it's spent on photography....