Which system in 2016?

<p>I said "Working Kit", and 20 pounds is not heavy for a backpack. Besides, it's only 11"x 17 x 8" and fits under an airplane seat. This is pretty much what I travel with too, when it's too far to go back for something I need. With the exception of a 300 mm lens, which I rarely use, this setup has the same capability as my Nikon D3 kit, which weighs between 30 and 35 pounds.</p>

<p>I can always choose to carry less. A "Day Kit" in a small shoulder bag might weigh 6 to 10 pounds with three or four lenses, depending on which lenses I choose, one 4 pounds for the A7Rii and a 24-70/2.8. On the other hand, a rolling light case with stands might add another 50 pounds. You do what you gotta do.</p>

<p>Photozone has not reviewed the new 24-70/2.8. You refer to a review of the f/4 Zeiss version. Whether that lens is worth it's price ($1100) is a matter of opinion, not fact. In my informal testing, I find the f/2.8 zoom is comparable to the Batis 25/2 at the wide end and f/2.8 to f/5.6, without noticeable softening in the corners at any aperture. Tests performed by LensRentals (op. cit.) are highly complementary of the f/2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/867-zeiss2470f4oss</p>

<p>Sony vs Zeiss for FE lenses is a non-issue. The fact that Zeiss continues to develop FE lenses is a complement to a fruitful collaboration, not a condemnation of Sony. The fact that Sony has produced a zoom lens, among others, comparable to Zeiss primes is remarkable, so say the least. If only Nikon were so far-sighted, their sales might not be dropping so precipitously (-25% in 2015, Sony up 25%).</p>

<p> </p>

I travel with two Sony a7RII bodies. Depending on photographic needs and the weight you want to carry, there are plenty of excellent

lenses to chose from. I suspect that you will have a difficult time telling the difference between the 800e and the Sony results. If you

have time rent the body and a collection of lenses and test drive them.

<blockquote>

<p>Photozone has not reviewed the new 24-70/2.8. You refer to a review of the f/4 Zeiss version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>oops, my bad. but that kind of proves my point that the lack of credible tests/reviews makes it pure hyperbole to proclaim it "superior" to Canikon's offerings at this early juncture. i guess we can overlook your lack of a response to my pointing out you have no way of knowing if the just-announced 18/2 is "just as good" as Leica glass, but , let's just remind folks what you said about the CZ 24-70/4:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The older 24-70/4 is often maligned, but it is an <em>excellent</em> lens except in comparison with other Sony lenses, a little soft in the corners at 24 mm."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>now here's what photozone said: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS ZA didn't really convince us completely - not at this price point for sure. While it is a joy to use the lens thanks to its high quality finish and super smooth controls, <em>the optical characteristics aren't quite as impressive.</em> ...The corners are generally soft at 24mm and it's not all that hot at 70mm @ f/4 either - even with activated (lossy) distortion correction... another downside is the quite rough bokeh. Combined with the high price point, this offering leaves a couple of question marks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, that doesnt sound too "excellent" to me. Was photozone wrong to give it 2.5 stars out of 5, or is Edward simply exaggerating out of Sony-love? woof woof.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sony vs Zeiss for FE lenses is a non-issue. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to you. However, when you have to mention expensive 3rd party lenses ahead of OEM lenses, it's an indication of <em>something</em>. Zeiss also makes lenses in Nikon mount, so what?<br>

<br>

im not really sure, either, why you decided to show us the contents of your "working bag" in a thread about going light while travelling.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can always choose to carry less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The whole point about going light while travelling is... wait for it... going light. That means bringing less gear in the first place, and using what you have. this point seemed pretty obvious to me, i must say. Apparently, it wasn't obvious to everyone. That said, i'm sure one could assemble a light Sony kit, just as one could assemble a light Fuji or Olympus kit. But, a 20-lb. pack on your shoulders does not a light kit make.</p>

<p>The OP is searching for a lighter kit relative to a Nikon kit of the same capability. If being light were the only criteria, why not a cell phone?</p>

<p>According to Photozone, the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 approaches 4000 lpi in the center, and 2500 in the corners. It is sharper in the corners than a Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 in the center, and the Nikon costs more. It's not that the lens is bad, just that it doesn't measure up to other Sony/Zeiss lenses. After correction in firmware, the distortion is less than 0.5%. That was a design decision to keep the cost and weight down in favor of resolution and low CA. The f/2.8 Sony (only) version is a lot better, especially once you are spoiled by the quality of the primes it overlaps. I'm not sorry I waited.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP is searching for a lighter kit relative to a Nikon kit of the same capability. If being light were the only criteria, why not a cell phone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>what the OP actually said was, help him choose between mirrorless systems, not post a picture of your fully loaded backpack.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and the Nikon costs more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>let's just fact-check that, shall we? oh lookee here. actually, nope, sorry, you're wrong, according to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00005LEOR/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all">Amazon</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is sharper in the corners than a Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 in the center,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>wrong again. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/809-nikonafs287028fx?start=1">according to photozone</a>, the 28-70 scores 3936 lines of resolution at 5.6 in the corners on a D3x. furthermore, the Nikon's corners are actually pretty good, topping 3000 lines of resolution even at 70mm. </p>

<p>also, it's disingenuous to use as a reference a lens which is no longer in production and has been updated twice--twice!-- as your point of comparison for Nikonia. that's daft. you might as well compare an <a href="http://www.kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_28_70mm_f_2_8_g_reviewid252.html">old Minolta zoom from the 90s</a>.</p>

<p>Look, Edward, this is silly. There's no need to exaggerate or invent falsehoods to make a point. A case can easily be made for Sony on its own merits without distorting the truth or disparaging other manufacturer's products. Does the thought that someone might go with a Fuji or Olympus system instead of Sony because they are lighter/smaller and yet capable of great image quality and performance really cause you such consternation?</p>

<p>In the past couple of years I have worked toward lightening my camera bag, especially for travel. First was the M9, then the Fuji XT1, now the Sony A7R2, which is the best small camera on the planet IMO. </p>

<p><em>"The net weight is a little over 20 pounds in a Thinktank Airport Essentials backpack"</em><br /> The point of mirrorless is to travel smaller and lighter !<br>

<br /> <strong><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless">https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless</a></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP is searching for a lighter kit relative to a Nikon kit of the same capability. If being light were the only criteria, why not a cell phone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think there's maybe a middle ground between a cell phone and a 20 lb. bag.<br /><br />One size doesn't fit all. We forget that sometimes..<br>

</p>

<p>I went to the Sony system because I wanted a lighter bag. I estimate my working Sony bag is about 1/2 the weight of my Nikon working bag. Each carrier similar focal length lenses and misc stuff. BUT, the main reason the Sony is lighter is my sony lenses 24-70 and 70-200 are f4 while my Nikon are f2.8. I accepted that trade off as accepted given my desire for something lighter and smaller.<br>

For me the solution process divides into three interdependent parts<br>

1. Camera bodies<br>

2. Lens<br>

3. Accessories.<br>

In the final analysis, the largest fraction of the weight/size of the bag is dependent on the lenses and there really is not much difference in weight amongst the different vendors if one compares lenses of equal focal length/speed.<br>

Since I am not a professional travel photographer and I was going to places with limited light, I would focus on fast primes and tripods, if they can be used. I use the Sony FE f2 28mm (with the 21mm adapter-makes the lens f2.8), Zeiss for Sony f1.8 55mm, Zeiss for Sony f4 24-70mm and the Sony f4 70-200. I may well get a 35mm and one of the 85-90mm choices as well to complete the set. One thing that Sony is missing is long telephotos. BUT again, there are adaptors for nearly all the lens out there...so decide on which ones you want.<br>

The other thing to consider with limited light environments with very limited motion is the in body image stabilization that Sony offers, particularly if tripods are a no-no. I have seen some incredibly sharp images at very slow shutter speeds out of the a7 and a7RII.<br>

Again, I would rent and test drive your choices... that is the only way you can really make the best decision for yourself.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not saying Fuji is the choice for everybody, and if you want full frame and you want mirrorless to be your main or only system Sony will make sense, but if you already have a full frame DSLR system and you want something specifically for its lightness when traveling I don't think Sony full frame makes a ton of sense. The 24-70/2.8 is a heavy lens, and it's the only midrange zoom that's good enough to make proper use of the high end sensor.</p>

<p>On the Fuji side you can have the 18-55, which is very small and light and has image quality comparable to most companies' f/2.8 zooms. The 55-200 and 10-24 are also excellent and are similar in size to other APSC lenses with the same zoom ranges. Those three lenses plus an X-T1 and a 35mm f/2 (for lower light and when it rains) come to 4.25 pounds - add a few batteries and accessories and make it 5 pounds - and fit in a pretty modest bag. I can carry them, plus a 60mm macro and a Surface 3, in my Domke F-802 clone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think there's maybe a middle ground between a cell phone and a 20 lb. bag.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely. I was just trying to make a point. Mirrorless cameras are much lighter than DSLRs, but are also capable of very high image quality. You don't have to sacrifice quality for size. Nor do you have to regret leaving the DSLR (or Leica) behind.<br>

<br>

I also agree that 20# is not exactly light. I only included the photo to show how I was able to duplicate the functionality of a DSLR kit in a lighter, more compact package. I only carry what I use, and use what I carry.<br>

<br>

It is noteworthy that this bag fits under the seat in front when traveling by air, or in the smallest puddle jumper (or tour bus) overhead. With the exception of the 24-70/2.8, these lenses are 2/3rds the size and half the weight of their DSLR counterparts, and the body is about the same size (1/4" taller) and weight as a Leica M.<br>

<br>

In the end, it is not what I prefer, or other contributors to this thread, rather the OP. He's looking for ideas, not dogma. The rest of us learn something too.</p>

I bought the M3 for its light weight and small size. Here are the weight specs in ounces for my kit.

M3 12.9;

55-200 10;

22mm f2 3.7;

11-22 7.4;

18-55 7.7;

total about 2.6 lbs.

This M3 kit is good today because it is very bright out. I use a canon 50mm 1.8 stm lens (5.6 ozs.) plus

adapter (3.9 ozs) for low light. It mounts canon flashes also plus a small internal flash. Every review I read

touts image and lens quality but they are not so complimentary about other features of the m3. It is good for

Canon users because of adaptability. I also have some ergonomics issues but I do not want a heavy twenty

pound kit to wander around with. I already have that when I want it.

<p>20lb kit: that's heavy!</p>

<p>My usual Canon DSLR kit weighs 7.14 lbs: 6D, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L f2.8, 70-300L. It would be lighter if I was taking the 70-200 f4 IS.</p>

<p>The only guaranteed way to get a lighter set up is to take fewer and/or lighter (usually prime) lenses or go for a smaller format.</p>

<p>The answers you've all provided are helping me a great deal. Photo.net has always been a great 'think tank' for me in cases like this.<br>

For almost 40 years I've been dealing with a tricky back, it's a way of life for me. One day I'm portaging a canoe and supplies for 2 weeks in the wilderness, the next I'm bedridden for a couple of weeks and relying on a cane for 2 more. It's the result of a car wreck as a 20 year old. We all have our struggles. Currently, I'm on the limp for the last 10 days from changing snow tires, with this vacation looming large 2 weeks away. This trip is a celebration/reward of/for 30 years of wedded bliss. My wife has spent 2 months in the preparations and it involves 10 train trips, 3 ferry rides, hiking Cinque Terre, the Amalfi coast by motorcycle, two 3 day car rentals, visiting lots of galleries, museums and Greek ruins in Sicily with lots of walking and hiking in between. I've been in a bit of a panic and stressing over my physical ability to carry the Nikon stuff. That is why the late posting of this thread. I had fully intended to pack the D800E and three lenses, an SB800, a few batteries, filters, cards and a light tripod. Done. That based on my successful experiences in Costa Rica last year where I agonized over downsizing and ultimately didn't. We only pack carry-on bags, with wheels, and a backpack each so we can get in and out everywhere with minimal hassle.<br>

So, I've followed the links some of you provided and weighed the pros and cons best I can from my livingroom. I'm convalescing on schedule and taking no unnecessary risks (read: being waited on hand and foot). Reading between the lines is helping me a bit. Of course, I'm unable to visit any stores at this point to test drive equipment. The heavy favourites here seem to be the Fuji XT1 and the Sony A7 family. These are the same two that rose to the top last year when I asked. I wonder if Fuji's next surprise might be a FF body? I do prefer the Fuji aesthetics and myriad of exterior controls. I was hoping Nikon might have released a 'pro' DF model for this reason. <br>

But, staying on topic, I think I may have to solve this dilemma with equipment I already own. As mentioned earlier, I'm out of time to learn a new system at this point. I'm thinking of ditching my Lowepro shoulder bag system for something smaller and only carrying my D800E and two lenses (batteries, cards, filters). With the AF-50 1.4 mounted the Nikon is not a bad walking around camera. I acquired this lens with a used D700 purchase several years ago and didn't use it until I read on Dx0 how well it performed in their tests. Now I use it regularly. I did spend half the 70's with just a 50mm 1.4 mounted to a Minolta with some great results... The second lens is a quandry. The f/2.8 zooms are heavy and large. I don't think I will need the macro AF-S 105, but it does have VR. The Sigma 35 ART is also heavy and not weather sealed. The AF-S 85mm 1.8 is very good and quite compact/light and would make the lightest kit, combined with the 5omm. I don't think a 50 and an 85 offers much versatility, though. Perhaps the 50mm, the 105mm and a new, smaller bag combined with the best monopod/walking stick combination I can find would be my best decision? I can always stitch panoramas with the 50mm in lieu of a better wide angle alternative and the 105mm gives me the most reach short of my 200mm zoom. I could also get away with a stout table-top tripod that stores easily.<br>

Any comments or additional advice? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I think there's maybe a middle ground between a cell phone and a 20 lb. bag". Edward</p>

<p>I think you are right.</p>

<p>I take the camera and lenses which are applicable to the subjects I'm going to shoot ...why take a chain saw if you are not going to chop down trees. It seems a lot of folk, take a lot of gear, just in case... and probably spend more time playing with gear than taking photos. The fondle my gear factor.</p>

<p>The Fuji system to my mind strikes a clever balance between weight and image quality.</p>

<p>" With the exception of the 24-70/2.8, these lenses are 2/3rds the size and half the weight of their DSLR counterparts, and the body is about the same size (1/4" taller) and weight as a Leica M". Edward.</p>

<p>Leica M's have moved on from the small and discreet camera and are now more about "it’s a Leica" although I think Leica lenses are a standard of technical quality that other manufactures struggle to match...including Zeiss.</p>

<p> "now the Sony A7R2, which is the best small camera on the planet IMO". Ian</p>

<p>Depends how you define small. Still relatedly heavy and bulky compared with other mirrorless systems with honking large lenses. I think the market Sony is aiming for is not mirrorless but Nikon/Canon but to achieve that they need to look at their cams ability to autofocus on fast moving subjects.</p>

<p>I think at this point in time they are neither fish or fowl.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a few other lenses for my Nex cameras, a 6 and 7. but I never use them! The Sigma 19/2.8 lives on the 6 and the 30/2.8 on the 7; the old Nikkors and adapters live in the cupboard.<br>

That said, it will be a worry to wonder whether you have enough lenses with you, but I seriously doubt that you will use the extra one(s) you take with you very much; thinking back to film days, I would use a 50mm most of the time and a 35mm for a few shots, and the 19 and 30 cover those 2 focal lengths with the Nexes. I always find it really difficult to make a nice image with a short telephoto, portraits yes, but other stuff, awkward. <br>

So, my suggestion is to take the 50, the 85, and the 35 and the 85 taken under protest.<br>

Have a great holiday with whatever you take!<br>

Andy.</p>

<p>20lb of gear on my back, whist on holiday, enjoying the sunshine and sights....methinks not.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Everyone is different. These posts do not include the weight, height and condition of the poster. In the film era, I hiked trails all over Mt Hood with well over 20lb of 4x5 and sturdy aluminum 3 series Gitzo and I'm a 5'4" small person. I was younger and stronger then. If one's main purpose of a trip is photography, there's nothing wrong with a 20 lb pack of gear, if it meets one's needs and assuming one can carry it without grunting every few steps. Physics and current camera design dictate certain things. Full frame cameras require a certain image circle. Combine that with autofocus motors, possibly stabilization motors, and sturdy construction and the lenses, especially at longer focal length start to get large, and expensive. This happens even with smaller sensors. My Fuji X T-1 is APS-c but my 50-140 f/2.8 (75-200 equivalent) still weighs a kilogram. My 70-200 f/2.8 Nikon lens weighs a pound (30%) more. The Sony 70-200 f/2.8 also weighs 3.3 lb, the same as the Nikon. Lloyd Chambers, a well known presence in photo web circles believes APS-C is a dead end format and appears to love the Sony A7RII, though he does cite its problems, and hate all Fuji gear, for reasons that he also cites. More megapixels matter to him and to many others. I think they do too but when I print images from my 16MP Fuji, they look pretty good. Were I printing 24x36" or 30x40" I might change my tune but realistically how many of those can you put on the wall?<br>

In the end, my Fuji kit, X T-1 body, 10-24, 16-55, 50-140, the full frame equivalent of 15-200mm, and up to 300 if I include the 1.4 converter, weighs just over 6 lb. My D800E with its "holy trinity" of 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 weighs 9.8 lb! <br>

Good luck Gup, I hope you're not too confused by all this banter. :-)</p>

 

<p>"I wonder if Fuji's next surprise might be a FF body?"</p>

<p>They keep saying they're not doing one, and I tend to believe them. But if they did have one, the lenses would probably be large.</p>

<p>Did a bit of research, not knowing how much weight you want to carry<br>

This combination of body/lens totals 65.2 oz or 4.075 pounds</p>

<table width="330" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><colgroup><col width="136" /> <col width="82" /> <col width="112" /> </colgroup>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="136" height="15"> </td>

<td width="82">Weight (oz)</td>

<td width="112">WXHXD (in) or DxL</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15">a7RII</td>

<td align="right">22.05---</td>

<td >5.0 x 3.8 x 2.4</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15">Sony FE 28 f2</td>

<td align="right">7.05---</td>

<td >2.52 x 2.36</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15">Sony 21 mm adapter</td>

<td align="right">9.5---</td>

<td >2.8 x 2.0</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15">Zeiss FE 55mm 1.8</td>

<td align="right">9.9---</td>

<td >2.54 x 2.78</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15">Batis FE 85mm f1.8</td>

<td align="right">16.7---</td>

<td >3.19 x 3.62</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>With bag and accessories I bet you could get to 10 pounds or less and might be able to add a 35mm prime<br>

I found camera operations to be pretty straight foward with a few tricks, depending on shooting style. Learning curve to reasonable ability probably less than 3-4 hours.<br>

Lensrental.com will send you gear to your front door at a pretty reasonable price. They have been very reliable for me over the years.<br>

Now, if you really get stuck, I might even consider being your assistant! Sounds like a wonderful trip and enjoy</p>

 

<p>Gup.</p>

<p>Personally in your boat I would take the 35mm and the 85mm. Or an 24/28 f2.8 and a 50mm. Either would work very nicely for Cinque Terre depending whether you prefer longer or wider. </p>

<p>The best system is the ability to see...your creative mind. Let it free.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think a 50 and an 85 offers much versatility, though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would agree, although a 35 and a 85 is a different story. the Sigma 35 is indeed a physically-large lens for that focal length, but it produces great results. it would be difficult for me to leave it out of the bag, but lighter means lighter. i dunno, if you are taking the 50 for sure, i would consider a 24 or 28mm. the AF-D versions arent the sharpest at open apertures, but they are fairly compact. you could also look into the Cosina Voigtlander 20/3.5. manual focus-only but gets good reviews. a 50 by itself would be fairly purist, but i know for me when i travel, i'd want something wider. Sounds like an amazing trip though, good luck!</p>

<p>Leicas have long held favor as the ultimate street camera, which often translates to "compact, quiet and discrete."Here is my original M3+DR Summicron 50/2, purchased in 1964, beside an M9+Rigid Summicron 50/2 purchased (used) in 2014, and a Sony A7Rii + Zeiss Loxia 50/2. I had to purchase a "new" old Summicron because the DR version will not fit on an M9.</p>

<p>In terms of size, weight and handling, they're all about the same. I added an RRS grip to the M9, which improves handling considerably. The Loxia 50 is large in diameter, but about the same weight as the Summicrons, and arguably easier to use in the field. I normally use lens shades, but omitted them for this photo. Actually, I sometimes leave them off when walking through a city. The camera seems to draw less attention that way, or perhaps it's my imagination.</p>

<p>I think my ideal "light travel" kit would be the Sony with a Loxia 35/2, 50/2 and an as yet non-existent Loxia 90/2. (I would buy one in an heartbeat, despite the overlap with an existing Sony 90 Macro and Batis 85/2. For once it would be nice to have three lenses that look like they belong in the same family ;) Besides, I like manual focus primes when I have the time to enjoy the experience. I have a Summicron 90, which is actually heavier and longer than the Sony 90 Macro, and the Sony is a monster.</p>

<p>There is a big difference between 35, 50 and 90. You see it at a glance through the Leica viewfinder - 63 deg, 47 deg and 27 degrees respectively. That was all I had for decades, and I still find the range adequate for most things.</p>

<p>Where is the light box? Don't I have an iron for the backdrop? Mark that up to "lazy" and up to my eyeballs in video editing (6 hours on tape with each of three cameras since Sunday).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18225272-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18225271-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>