fish or cut bait: time to cut back on weight

[DanK]

Re the question of reducing equipment weight: here is where I have ended up. This may be far more than anyone else is interested in, but if anyone has reactions, I'd look forward to them.

I’m not posting about travel. I’m posting about age. My most common equipment set is about 11 pounds and off-center on my back because of a tripod, and I’m finding this less pleasant with each passing year.

After devoting perhaps far too much time to this, here are what I see as the options:

1. Smaller sensor: APS-C. To get a large weight reduction, you need a smaller sensor so that you can take advantage of smaller, lighter lenses. Unfortunately, most manufacturers don’t have a serious mirrorless APS-C line now. Canon, for example, now has a passable APS-C mirrorless camera, the R7, but only 2 APC-C F-mount (RF-S) lenses, and exactly zero high-end RF-S lenses.

The main exception (I might be giving short shrift to Sony) is Fuji. I would be very happy with a Fuji system if it weren’t for the X-trans sensor. Many Fuji shooters say that it’s no problem to process X-Trans raw files with Lightroom and ACR, but I’ve seen enough examples of problems and read enough by committed Fuji users that I'm convinced the problems are real. They don’t always appear; their presence and severity depends on things like colors and the amount of random fine detail. And they are generally small enough that they aren’t apparent online. However, I print relatively large, so it’s an issue for me. I’m not willing to give up Adobe because my entire workflow centers around it, and it would take me a huge amount of time to reach a similar level of proficiency and speed with new software.

There are work-arounds: a separate raw rendering program, Adobe’s Enhance Image, and various changes to sharpening. The first two I know work, at least to some degree. The third I’ve never seen documented with images. But this would be a complication, taking a little time and resulting in duplicate images.

2. Smaller sensor: Micro-four-thirds. Here the clear contender is the new OM Systems OM-1, which from all accounts is a superb camera and perhaps the best available in any sensor size in terms of relevant computational photography functions. There are a fair number of excellent MFT lenses. The larger DOF at any given aperture is a drawback for some people but an advantage for me, given what I do. It’s only 20 MP, but for static subjects, it will do sensor shifting to give you 50 MP raw files handheld and 80 MP on a tripod, which also reduces noise.

The main drawbacks are the weaker low-light performance, the limitation of 20 MP for images where the subject is moving, and the 12-bit rather than 14-bit captures. Peripherals are also less available; e.g., there are very few choices for flashes. This seems like it might be a step too far.

3. Just buy a FF mirrorless body and a walk-around lens designed for it—in my case, probably a Canon R6 Mark II and the RF 24-105 L f/4.0. This saves only 300 g with the walk-around zoom and only 200g when I use my other EF lenses and need the adapter. However, the combination of IBIS and in-lens IS is so good that I could usually leave the tripod at home, saving another 2000g (about 4.4 pounds).

The R6 has two of the computational tricks that the OM-1 has: you can tell it to save a bunch of captures in a burst from before and after you press the shutter. This is great for action photos of wildlife (not relevant for me) or kids (relevant for me). It does in camera focus bracketing, and while it doesn't create a composite raw in-camera, that is trivially easy for me to do in post. I don’t believe it has the ability to use sensor shifting to capture higher-resolution images, and it’s only a 24 MP sensor.

There are no backsies, as kids used to say in the US. These are expensive options, and whichever I do, I’ll be stuck with.

[billtils]

Nice summary Dan.

It's your choice and as you know I chose the mirrorless path, but there is another twist that I did not anticipate: apart from holiday (US "vacation") shots, everything recent has been indoors or backyard so no heavy backpack to deal with and the lighter body has helped.

FWIW, a good friend also in the "need to shed weight" club traded his 5D3 for a M4/3 rig and is very happy.

[BobGilbody]

This seems all too familiar to me. I have a Canon 5Ds and a R7. I very rarely use the 5Ds away from the granny flat. When I do use it it is usually with a tripod or monopod. The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is heavy. Again it is tripod or monopod. I am considering getting a Canon 100-400 RF. The day I can't carry that is the day I take up reading poetry and drinking port by the bottle. At the present I can handle the R7 with a Sigma 150-600 C but for how long I'm not sure.

[Manfred M]

Why not a hybrid approach - keep your FF setup and add a lighter weight option just for travel?

I've always tended to stick to the camera system I have until I find using it limits me from getting the kinds of shots I'm after. The advantage is I understand the camera and lens performance intimately and will continue to use them until they get to a point where they no longer give me the results I am looking for. Fast, pro glass is fine for studio or location work and is overkill for travel photography where carrying it around is not a major issue. My heavy duty tripod is my friend for much of my work.

My Nikon D810 is 9-year old technology. I have no real cause to change it right now.

I have spent two months travelling (India and Atlantic Canada) this year. All my heavy pro lenses stayed at home and I shot exclusively with the Nikkor f/3.5 - 5.6 28mm - 300mm. Sure there were times where a few more mm on the bottom end would have been nice, but I didn't have them and I still managed well. Sure it's not the fastest or sharpest lens on the market, but in a hand-held situation it really made no difference. A lighter, mirrorless body would save a bit of weight, but frankly it never really got too heavy, even during long shoots. There is no question that I will replace it with a mirrorless body at some point,

This is close to your Option 3. Yes, I am a few years younger than you but do have had mobility issues for most of my adult life, so know what that is like

I know that I will be doing less exotic travel in the future and weight is less of an issue when I travel by car, rather than by other means. It is also the reason I am spending more and more time in the studio using a tripod, where camera weight is not an issue.

[inkista]

Should I mention a refurbed RP is $599 at the moment? Have you considered just going with cheap low-end stuff to see if it works for you? The 24-50 is yo-smaller than a 24-105L and within its range, the performance isn't that far off. Maybe start slow and low with just a cheap walkaround combo instead of tackling a full-on super expensive switchover.

[billtils]

[DanK]

Thanks for the replies.

This shows that it's even harder to describe...

Manfred, you and I have a very different mix of uses. I do very few long trips, and none as exotic as yours. I also do much less studio work. Much of my photography is on 1-4 mile walks or hikes in the hills, and I often have no idea whether I'll stumble on something I want to photograph. The weight is a real nuisance then, and I find that I increasingly leave the camera at home. I do some night photography, but that is rarely far from my car, so weight doesn't bother me then.

Kathy, I don't need to experiment with APS-C. I've shot with APS-C for years, and I still use an old 7D for bug macros. I'd be content with a good APS-C system, but in the mirrorless world, the only one I found is Fuji, which has other problems that I don't think I want to fuss with.

So for me the unknown is how happy or unhappy I would be with an MFT OM-1 as my main camera. I know I would be content with a FF R6 II, but that makes for less reduction in weight when I need to carry long lenses.

On a somewhat related note: Fuji's newest generation, the X-T5 and X-H2, use a 40 MP sensor. That seems excessive for an APS-C camera. In terms of pixel density, that's equivalent to 93 MP on a FF sensor. Quite apart from the negative effects of small photosite size on signal strength, that seems like tempting fate in terms of diffraction. The 32 MP on the APS-C R7 even got some negative comments in reviews for this reason. if I were to buy Fuji, I'd stick with the X-T4, which I think is 26 MP.

[DanK]

I think I have made up my mind: I'll just replace the 5D IV with the R6 II and the EF 24-105 with the RF 24-105.

When I am just using that combination, that will save only 300g, 2/3 pound. However, the combination of IBIS and in-lens stabilization will let me do without a tripod much of the time. So one of my common sets (body, walk around 24-105, 70-200, macro) will drop from 4980g to 2803g (roughly 11 to 6 pounds), even using my old EF telephoto and macro and the necessary adapter. A big advantage is that I can keep all of my peripheral stuff other than an L-plate and that I won't have to spend a lot of time learning the new camera, as it's basically an elaboration of the menus and controls I'm used to.

Thanks for bearing with me and commenting.

[inkista]

...Kathy, I don't need to experiment with APS-C...

Which is why I recommended a $599 RP + RF 24-50. It's a full frame 650g combo. I never mentioned APS-C. I was saying downgrade for compactmess.

But yes, an R6 II is much much nicer and the IBIS is definitely a consideration.

[DanK]

Kathy,

Sorry I misunderstood your point.

I addition to some weight savings, the R6 II will be a substantial upgrade for me, given what I do. The outstanding AF will be very helpful, although the OM-1 is no slouch in that regard and would also have been a big improvement over what I have.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[inkista]

... I addition to some weight savings, the R6 II will be a substantial upgrade for me, given what I do. The outstanding AF will be very helpful, although the OM-1 is no slouch in that regard and would also have been a big improvement over what I have....

Yeah, I'm looking EOS R-wards for zoo/birding given the subject ID/animal eye-AF tracking AND given the $550 RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS USM. And the $900 RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM, which sounds like it would be horrible, but apparently in combo with an R6 the 800/11 is actually pretty good.

The RP lacking IBIS, and being Digic 8 (so not having any of the animal eye-AF tracking special sauce) would be a no-go for me. But $599 is sub-R50/SL3 pricing for full frame. And it does have people eye-AF tracking... you said kids not wildlife.

[DanK]

I know I could get light kit for less, and I have one very light option (LX-100) I use when I really don't want to shlep gear. My issue was how close I could get to the quality I have with my current good gear (5D IV and several good EF lenses) while paring weight. The R6 lets me get rid of some weight--although very little in some cases--while actually improving quality. The OM-1 would have given more more weight reduction, but with several costs. Frankly, I think either would have been reasonable, just with different pros and cons.

A key to this is that EF lenses work well on R bodies with either of the Canon adapters. I'm keeping all but one of my EF lenses. Given how expensive RF lenses are and the Canon policy at present of not licensing third-party lenses for the R mount, this change would have been prohibitively expensive otherwise.

[inkista]

I know I could get light kit for less, and I have one very light option (LX-100) I use when I really don't want to shlep gear. My issue was how close I could get to the quality I have with my current good gear (5D IV and several good EF lenses) while paring weight. The R6 lets me get rid of some weight--although very little in some cases--while actually improving quality. The OM-1 would have given more more weight reduction, but with several costs. Frankly, I think either would have been reasonable, just with different pros and cons.

Yup. Micro four-thirds bodies, if you go for something like an OM-1 or a Panasonic GH6 isn't actually paring much off in weight or bulk, body-wise. And while four-thirds is more than sufficient, it's still not nearly as nice as full frame.

A key to this is that EF lenses work well on R bodies with either of the Canon adapters. I'm keeping all but one of my EF lenses. Given how expensive RF lenses are and the Canon policy at present of not licensing third-party lenses for the R mount, this change would have been prohibitively expensive otherwise.

But the flip side is that with the same lenses+adapter, you're adding to the bulk (adapter) and not losing any weight of the said lenses. I know I'd also make use of an EF->RF adapter if I were switching over. But after shooting on micro four-thirds for as long as I have, I'd still want some smaller/lighter alternatives.

Looking over the RF lens lineup, where my eye is roving aren't the L iterations, but the new designs we haven't seen before: e.g., the tiny $250 RF 16mm f/2.8 STM. The $300 24-50. The $500 24/1.8 IS STM Macro and $400 35/1.8 IS STM Macro (both 1:2 magnification, btw). All of these are the same size or smaller than adapting an EF 50/1.8 STM. Not bad as alternatives for go-light days.

[DanK]

Athough mirrorless lenses could be in principle lighter because of the shorter flange distance, they are often not very different. it's the diameter of the lens and the material used in the housing that dominate weight, particularly the former. That's why small sensors matter so much: they allow for a much smaller diameter lens. Here are two that are relevant for me:

100mm L macro: RF is 105g heavier than the EF
70-200 f/4 L: RF is 85g lighter than the EF

One has to throw in the EF=>RF adapter, which is 100g.

The bear for me is my EF 100-400 L f/4.5-5.6. It weighs 1640g (3.6 pounds)! There is no RF L equivalent. There is a slower and lower-level (not L) RF 100-400 f/5.6 -8.0 100-400 that weighs only 635g--I suspect in large part because of the slower speed.

So as long as I'm not lugging the 100-400, the weight penalty for my carrying those other two EF lenses and an adapter is a total of only 90g, relative to replacing them with RF lenses. The net change for the body, three lenses (the other is 24-105) and an adapter is a decrease in weight of 210g. Almost a wash: half a pound lighter in total.

[inkista]

As I said. You have to downgrade the glass to get a lighter carry. I'll just float the suggestion that it's actually cheap enough to try, and possibly worth it for the weight loss at least for more casual walkaround shooting.

Physics and optics being what they are if you're going to stick to full frame and L glass, then yes, you're not going to shed any weight/bulk at all, but you will at least get newer optical designs.

The non-L 100-400, btw, is gaining a pretty good reputation among birders, and it looks to be an improvement over the EF 70-300 IS USM, which is more or less what it's replacing in the lens lineup. I'm still freaked out that at f/8 it will still autofocus with an 1.4x TC on it. The new RF version of the 100-400L is more the RF 100-500L.