Thinking of downsizing for travel. Any suggestions?

[pnodrog]

My current logic, not yet pursued is as follows.

Full frame mirrorless body with the highest resolution I can afford to allow extensive cropping and avoid needing ultra long lenses. A zoom lens 24-120mm (or longer, 200 or 240?) not ultra fast as hopefully camera ISO response will assist with exposure. Out of focus background can be done in pseudo fashion when editing. Ultra wide angle landscape shots can be achieved by stitching.


Not the lightest set up but much lighter than carrying multiple lenses and very little quality compromise for the bulk of my photography.

If I am likely to encounter wildlife/birds I may substitute a 28-300mm or 80-400mm lens and drop into crop mode. I may also sometimes (when I am feeling strong or dedicated) add a pancake style lightweight wider angle lens to the kit.

[billtils]

My current logic, not yet pursued is as follows.

Full frame mirrorless body with the highest resolution I can afford to allow extensive cropping and avoid needing ultra long lenses. A zoom lens 24-120mm (or longer, 200 or 240?) not ultra fast as hopefully camera ISO response will assist with exposure. Out of focus background can be done in pseudo fashion when editing. Ultra wide angle landscape shots can be achieved by stitching.


Not the lightest set up but much lighter than carrying multiple lenses and very little quality compromise for the bulk of my photography.

If I am likely to encounter wildlife/birds I may substitute a 28-300mm or 80-400mm lens and drop into crop mode. I may also sometimes (when I am feeling strong or dedicated) add a pancake style lightweight wider angle lens to the kit.

So is it going to be the new Z8?

[pnodrog]

So is it going to be the new Z8?

Very importantly I recently gained my wife's permission to update my camera and am waiting very impatiently for Nikon to announce the next FF camera. If it's a Z8 it may well be the one. However a 7iii or z6iii will probably leave a little more funds for the lens. I am very tempted to rush out and get Z7ii but know how annoyed I will be if Nikon release a significantly improved option in the very near future and the odds seem to be that they will.

I am sort of in camera limbo at the moment. However a few weeks ago I got a second hand Z50 as my "car glove box camera" and I am still having fun getting to know it, knowing that a lot of what I learn will be applicable to a full frame Z camera regardless of which one it is.

[rpcrowe]

I do like a zoom lens for my main glass because I do less cropping of the image if I can crop in camera.

I want at least, a constant f/2.8 aperture. This is sufficient for my use because of the excellent high ISO performance of many mirrorless cameras but, any smaller aperture places some restrictions on when and how I can use the lens.

I want either lens stabilization or IBIS on my combination.

Niceties such as very decent eye auto focus is a very important plus in my choice.

About the largest image I will print is 16x20 inches, so an APSC size sensor is adequate for my needs.

I have experimented with fixed lens cameras but, these do not usually have the aperture that I am seeking.

[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 too have found the Z50 to be quite a good photography companion for its size and weight advantage. Yet I use it with Z FX lenses as I also have the Z7II. I absolutely LOVE it with the Z 14-30mm f/4. Some shots: https://edruthphoto.com/nikon-z-14-30mm-f-4-s-lens/

[John Pilkington]

This may not be the most popular solution right now, but I recently sold my D850 and all the glass in exchange for Olympus (as it was) EM1 Mk III. I love shooting with primary lenses, so the kit contains: Sanyang 12mm F/2 manual wide angle, M. Zuiko (Olympus) 17mm F/1.8, Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 45mm F/2.8 macro and - the only zoom - Panasonic G Vario F/4 - 5.6 100 - 300 mm telephoto, which I will soon exchange for the Olympus equivalent. No regrets. The entire kit in its bag with a few odds and ends weighs about 5 1/2 lb (2.5 Kg). After selling the D850 and lenses (which included the legendary Nikon 200mm macro) I had about £700 ($838) to spend on extras.

[rpcrowe]

[QUOTE=pnodrog;773586] I found the 16-50mm a bit restrictive and will probably eventually change it for a 16-80mm lens. /QUOTE]

I also find the Sigma 18-50mm lens pretty restrictive but, the payback is that this lens is very lightweight. It is not as light in weight as the Sony 16-50mm kit lens but, the Sigma has a constant f/2.8 aperture and its I.Q. is quite a bit better than the kit lens.

Carrying the Sony 85mm f/1.8 lens only adds 371 grams to my kit and the image quality is outstanding - even wide open at f/1.8. Here is an example of a print I made with the 85mm lens shot wide open...



I'm going to frame it and hang it over my fireplace.

[Manfred M]

I'm dragging my full-frame D810 all over India right now. I have a single lens; the 28 - 300mm and have a just a polarizing filter along. I left the battery grip at home.

I look at overall image quality (a larger sensor is important for the type of work that I do). I would love to have some extra lenses along, but I have only missed a couple of shots, where a wider focal length would been useful.

I looked at total weight and taking just one more lens would negate weight savings of a mirrorless body...

[billtils]

... but I have only missed a couple of shots, where a wider focal length would been useful.

I looked at total weight and taking just one more lens would negate weight savings of a mirrorless body...

Not sure what you are getting at here Manfred - you make a very good point that there's more than the camera body in the bag that we lug around but the lenses in in it will be the same whether or not the body is mirrorless.

[Chataignier]

Not sure what you are getting at here Manfred - you make a very good point that there's more than the camera body in the bag that we lug around but the lenses in in it will be the same whether or not the body is mirrorless.

That's not strictly true - you would probably want lenses of equivalent focal length and max apertures, but for an APS Mirrorless those lenses would be smaller and lighter.

[Manfred M]

Not sure what you are getting at here Manfred - you make a very good point that there's more than the camera body in the bag that we lug around but the lenses in in it will be the same whether or not the body is mirrorless.

What I am suggesting is that total weight I travel with is important. A full frame body and single lens can lighter than travelling with a mirrorless body and more than one lens. The lenses are what add to the weight.

[DanK]

What I am suggesting is that total weight I travel with is important. A full frame body and single lens can lighter than travelling with a mirrorless body and more than one lens. The lenses are what add to the weight.

Indeed, but I think of it the other way around: given the focal lengths I would want to carry, how much does the whole kit weigh?

I've given up on the APS-C option for now. I could live with the Canon R7 if there were a suitable array of high quality, designed-for-APSC RF lenses available, but there aren't. The Fuji XT series would be a fine alternative if it weren't for the X-Trans sensor, but I am not willing to deal with the problems those sensors create for Adobe users, and I'm not about to replicate the scores and scores of hours to become similarly proficient with other software.

If I had a rich patron, I'd simply keep my FF Canon gear and buy an OM-1 with a couple of lenses to supplement it. However, I lack a rich patron. So, I'll hang tight for now, but with a possible long trip coming up this year, I may have to deal with this again.

[rpcrowe]

I always carry a small flash when traveling. The one point in which I preferred my Canon DSLR gear to my Sony mirrorless gear is in the area of small compact flash units.

The flash I preferred with my Canon gear was always the 270EX ii which was a tiny flash that had a low profile. I would carry it mounted on my camera virtually all the time and never realized that the flash was there until I needed it.

The flash I have chosen for my A6xxx Sony cameras is the Godox TT350 or the Flashpoint equivalent. This flash is actually a LOT more versatile than the Canon 270EX ii but, it has a higher profile and makes the camera a bit off balance while carrying it on a strap. I tend to carry the flash in my case/photo vest and don't mount it until I need it!

However, for about eight ounces, this little flash does a great job. It is especially good for fill when shooting closeups of dark complexioned people!

[billtils]

What I am suggesting is that total weight I travel with is important. A full frame body and single lens can lighter than travelling with a mirrorless body and more than one lens. The lenses are what add to the weight.

That makes sense.

[billtils]

That's not strictly true - you would probably want lenses of equivalent focal length and max apertures, but for an APS Mirrorless those lenses would be smaller and lighter.

David - you are correct about moving to an APS body but Manfred was discussing the nett weight difference in DSLR + its lense(s) and a mirrorless body + the same lenses (there may be a difference in lens weight to consider, the Nikon D mount 70-200mm comes in at 1430g and the Z equivalent at 1360g).

[bhurley]

I just weighed my travel kit, which consists of a Sony A7iii with an Arca Swiss plate (it's the bottom part of an L bracket) and three LTM rangefinder primes: a Canon 35/1.8 LTM, Canon 50/1.4 LTM and Canon 100/3.5 LTM.

The camera with bottom plate and adapter for the rangefinder lenses weighs 871 grams
All three lenses together weigh 649 grams (the 35/1.8 weighs 139 grams, the 50/1.4 weighs 282 grams, and believe it or not the 100/3.5 weighs 228 grams; it's actually lighter than the 50). These weights include the end cap and lens cap. I don't use a hood for the 35 or the 50; I have a small hood for the 100 that weighs 25 grams.

I own one zoom lens, a Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8, which weighs 823 grams. So in my particular case three primes are lighter than one zoom.

If you don't mind using manual lenses, rangefinder lenses on a mirrorless body are a nice option for lightweight travel. I also have a Sony A7s, which is even lighter than the A7iii since it has no IBIS (it's 499 grams by itself; I never use it on a tripod so don't have a plate installed), but I much prefer the A7iii unless weight is the most important consideration.

[Chataignier]

---
The Fuji XT series would be a fine alternative if it weren't for the X-Trans sensor, but I am not willing to deal with the problems those sensors create for Adobe users, and I'm not about to replicate the scores and scores of hours to become similarly proficient with other software. ---

@Dan : I'm sure we've touched on this before, but it is obviously significant for you, which I have trouble understanding. I and at least 5 of my photoclub friends use Fuji X system with LR and PS with no trouble at all. One of these friends has just published a book (his third) of wildlife photos, all done with Fuji X and LR/PS. I regularly print up 40x60cm and now and then up to 50x70cm - results impeccable.
I'm an ex-canon user who learned LR/PS with Canon images and I honestly did not notice any reduction in quality or performance when switching to Fuji. I've even tried Capture 1 to see if I can see any difference, but I cant.

Perhaps a subject for a different thread, but my question is : what's the problem ? I ask this question in a practical sense, not a hyper technical one - I know you can find articles just about everywhere that state LR/PS is no good with Fuji X, but they are old. Look for more recent material and you find a different story, and in any case, you have to pixel dive to find the difference even in the old articles.

At a practical level I just dont see the defects that these hyper technical articles claim are a problem. I'd love to be able to lend you my camera for a week or two so you can see for yourself, but distances are somewhat of an obstacle ! Perhaps you can borrow one locally ? I'm confident you will not be disappointed.

[DanK]

David,

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I've spoken or traded notes with a number of enthusiastic Fuji users, and I've read a fair amount online. It seems that many Fuji users are entirely happy with the combination of Fuji and Adobe, but many aren't. In fact, this all started for me when I told a long-time and very enthusiastic Fuji shooter that I was considering switching to Fuji to save weight, and he warned me to explore more before I jumped because of Adobe's problems with Fuji raw files.

There are apparently two entirely different problems: what many people call "worm" artifacts, which also includes poor fine detail, and bad rendering of detail in greens. Here's one article about the first by one of the Fuji users whose online postings about this seem well-reasoned to me:

https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogr...raw-conversion

What he wrote is consistent with what I have read in numerous places: in some cases, to avoid artifacts, either use Iridient X-Transformer to convert the Fuji raws to DNGs first, or use the Enhance Details function now built into ACR and LR before doing any other processing. That's not a great answer in my book, as I have used Enhance Details a moderate amount with Canon raw files, and as you might expect from an AI-based function, it doesn't always get things right. I recently discarded some enhanced images because of artifacts the "enhancement" caused.

This posting is 3 years old, but I haven't found anything newer that suggests that these problems have been resolved. Maybe they are out there but I haven't found them.

I suspect it depends on how fussy one is. I'm probably fussier than I need to be in that I often worry about details that seem to concern no one but me.

My brother shoots primarily with a Fuji, but he lives on the other side of the country. The next time either of us visits the other, I hope to do a controlled comparison taking the same shots with his Fuji XT-3 and my Canon 5D IV. They are fairly close in resolution (26 vs. 30.4 MPX), so that shouldn't confound the comparison too much.

Dan

[Chataignier]

@Dan : You may be amused to hear that I'd forgotten about the enhance option in LR ! I tested it with a few images when it first appeared and decided it wasn't worth the bother.

What does make a big difference is DXO Pure Raw plug-in, the Deep Prime option, but even this I only use when shooting at ISO 6400 or above.

This video might be interesting for you : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7BeGncr7w8

I'll stop beating the drum now and get back to taking photos !

Cheers
David

[rpcrowe]

David - you are correct about moving to an APS body but Manfred was discussing the nett weight difference in DSLR + its lense(s) and a mirrorless body + the same lenses (there may be a difference in lens weight to consider, the Nikon D mount 70-200mm comes in at 1430g and the Z equivalent at 1360g).

It all depends on the brand camera equipment you are using. The Sony 70-200mm f/4 lens weighs 840 grams while the f/2.8 version weighs 1045 grams. However Tamron has a 70-180mm f/2.8 lens in a Sony mount that weighs a mere 810 grams. All three of these lenses can be used on full frame or crop bodies.

If you decide to go crop format a setup with the Sony A6600, + Sony 70-350mm lens + Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 will weigh only 1416 grams. Throw in a second A6600 body and your total weight is 1919 grams.

Despite the weight, I like having a second camera on any extended trip. I broke a Canon body climbing a hill in Alaska but, my second body saved my trip photographically. A fellow traveler on a guided tour to China broke his Nikon falling on a Chinese street and couldn't shoot anymore until the tour arrived in Hong Kong where he purchased a second camera.

If you want the convenience of a two camera setup with two lenses from 28mm equivalent to 270mm equivalent which are constant f/2.8 apertures, that will weigh just 2136 grams.