lightweight camera and system needed.

<p>thanks again...it’s good to know that there are options available...i will be using the camera when traveling and some produce type photographs, both used for stock photo...regards....David</p>

<p>A quest for high quality and lighter weight will included selection of lenses. A 50 mm f/2 lens will be essentially the same size regardless of the sensor, FF, APS-C or M43. Of course smaller formats incur a step down in focal length for the same FOV, which reduces the size proportionately, but only to a point.</p>

<p>Lenses shorter than 28 mm will usually require some degree of retrofocus design, which increases the size. In order to achieve the same field of view as a 24 mm lens (very wide) for APS-C, you need a 16mm lens, which for a Fuji is 3" long and weighs over 13 oz. For comparison, this is the same size and weight as a Loxia 21/2.8 (FF) and 2 oz heavier than a Batis 25/2. You would need a 14 mm lens (which Fuji doesn't make) for a 21 mm FOV on a Fuji.</p>

<p>There is almost no difference between comparable APS-C and FF zoom lenses. A good "normal" zoom for the Fuji would be a 16-55/2.8, which is 4" long and weighs 23 oz. The Sony/Zeiss 16-35/3 is 1/2" shorter and 5 oz lighter. (Sony doesn't make that lens in f/2.8. The "normal" Sony 24-70/2.8 is 5" long and 30 oz. The f/4 version is about the same size as the 16-35/4.)</p>

<p>To sum up, the best way to conserve weight with a mirrorless camera is to use prime lenses, which these cameras accommodate very well, including manual focus. If you insist on a zoom lens, then a variable aperture or f/4 version will be considerably lighter, smaller and less expensive than f/2.8.</p>

<p>I should mention a very important topic for digital photographers - keeping the sensor clean.</p>

<p>This is a constant concern for DSLR users. The moving mirror stirs up dust introduced (largely) on the back of lenses or when changing lenses in a dusty environment. Cleaning becomes a weekly task. The mirror must be locked up and the shutter held open for as long as it takes. The sensor is buried deeply inside the body, and requires special cleaning tools and methods. It's especially hard to reach the corners.</p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras make life a LOT easier. There is no mirror (duh!) and the shutter in some (e.g., Sony A7) is normally open. The sensor is close to the lens flange and easily reached. Sony goes a step further, using the IBIS mechanism to shake the sensor each time it is powered up. In nearly 18 months of daily use, I've only needed to use wet cleaning twice, and then when the camera was almost new (probably oil droplets). The Sony also has a dedicated cleaning cycle, which vibrates for about a second. Modern sensors are often coated to reduce static, which is responsible for the most persistent dust and lint issues.</p>

<p>I carry a blower (Giottos Rocket) and a set of Visible Dust brushes, which suffice for all but sticky particles (e.g., salt spray). Most of the time the auto cleaning is enough.</p>

<p>The Leica M9 is kind of in between. The shutter is normally closed, but there is a means to lock it open. The sensor seems to be a dust magnet, nearly as bad as a DSLR, but much easier to reach and clean.</p>

Fuji X-T1 or the soon to arrive X-T2. Huge EVF with very fast refresh, decent AF (not as good as DSLRs but better than

most mirrorless), weather resistance, excellent image quality and you can't beat the lens lineup.

<p>Found a little link here might be of interest. Top 10 travel camera's from 2015. The XT-1 leading the pack.<br>

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10-compact-travel-cameras/#/fujifilm-xt-1_83529_600x450.jpg</p>

<p>Canon makes some excellent pancake lenses. You might try one on your Rebel to see if you could live with that limited configuration. Breaking the zoom habit is not easy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To sum up, the best way to conserve weight with a mirrorless camera is to use prime lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. If you've never shot with the Fuji 18-55, you may not be aware of just how good it is, for a compact zoom. It's easily the best kit lens available for ILCs optically, and punches way above its weight class for IQ while remaining compact. it also covers like 4-5 prime lens ranges (18, 20, 24, 35, 50) and is stabilized, which makes it quite versatile. It's not 100% equivalent to something like the Nikon 24-70 AF-S, but surprisingly comparable to that lens in terms of image quality. i can basically do 85% of what i can do with a pro zoom as i can with that little miracle. i have Fuji primes too, but ive found the 18-55 essentially redundates some of them as well. i thought i would use the 35/1.4 a lot more than i actually do, and the 18-55 is about the same size. i only really pull out the 35 when i want a fast aperture for shallow DoF. i've heard the Fuji 16-55/2.8 is good optically, but i dont really need it since i have the 18-55. using it does cause you to rethink your shooting strategy a little bit -- you're probaby not used to relying on a lens like that if you're a serious shooter, but it does the job well, and can go places the clunky lengthy standard zooms won't go easily. </p>

<p>There are some very good zoom lenses, and the Fuji 18-55 may well be among them. It is also true that a zoom lens may weigh less than the prime lenses it overlaps. However it is more weight around your neck at any one time, which was the point I intended to make. You can also save weight by carrying less. Many times, I carry just a single lens when I'm walking around.</p>

<p>Despite its size and weight, I find myself using a Sony 24-70/2.8 more than any other lens, especially when I expect to change lenses. I changed the way I carry the camera (Sun Sniper strap) in accommodation. For something informal, like walking around downtown, I use a 25 or 35. A camera bag counts too, but the weight can often be distributed to your shoulders or hips. That is precisely the reason to use a Sun Sniper or Black Rapid strap on the camera too.</p>

<p>How the load shifts when you walk is another consideration. A shoulder bag is convenient, but tends to swing forward when you climb or descend, and can be destabilizing (e.g., getting on a bus). A backpack is much less convenient, but remains centered with the weight on your hips.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are some very good zoom lenses, and the Fuji 18-55 may well be among them. It is also true that a zoom lens may weigh less than the prime lenses it overlaps. However it is more weight around your neck at any one time, which was the point I intended to make.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>thanks for making that point, but it's also not necessarily true. the Fuji 18-55 weighs 310 grams, less than half the weight of the 16-55/2.8. compared to Fuji's primes, it's slightly heavier than the 27 and 18 pancakes, 14/2.8, and 35/1.4, but only 10g heavier than the 23/1.4, in any event, we are not talking about a heavy lens which is in danger of making you keep your chiopractor on speed dial, especially if you are used to pro DSLR standard zooms. The point that i am making is that unless you yourself are a paperweight, the 18-55 is a slinky piece of kit which can easily be carried all day.</p>

<p>I carried the 18-55 & XT-1 for 5 days, all day on a recent May vacation. A total non-issue regarding weight and discomfort. Also, it's not so in jest the comment regarding a Chiropractor as I needed one once lugging around my Pentax 67! Funny today, but not then.<br>

Truly, I'm finding that in the case of the Fuji set up, there are no excuses anymore. Just go!</p>

<p>I bought into the Fuji as a backup system...weight and image quality was my main consideration.</p>

<p>I have been very impressed.</p>

<div></div>

<p>BW...</p><div></div>

<p>I accept a tradeoff in aperture as long as image quality is not unduly sacrificed. That was not a problem with Nikon because their f/2.8 zooms are as good or better than their prime lenses. The Sony system proved to be the other way around, with a couple of exceptions. The 16-35/4, 70-200/4 and 24-70/2.8 are very good. The 24-70/4 has mediocre image quality, as do the variable aperture lenses in the Sony collection.<br /><br /></p>

<p>In retrospect, the Nikon zooms weren't all that good, but their prime lenses were even worse by comparison. They're just now catching up.</p>

The L series Canon lenses are superb. The X series Lumix and high quality optics from Olympus are also very good. Head to head I do not know using lens metrics on paper. Nor do I think this would be dispository at the end for LENS quality. The resolution for a given purpose means that all the small mirrorless systems are worth considering. Each has enough personal little qualities (say quirks) that only a trial or store test will be revelatory as I can see it. I chose the micro four thirds which came out well before the competition in mirrorless smaller systems like Fuji and have reached no no road block yet. Fine primes, fine zooms and a full array of focal lengths. As for Fuji, I have little doubt I could be very very very happy with that brand a company to rely on for its lenses and its engineering as well. However micro four thirds came out around many years ago and I made my descent int that circlle of Purgatroy :-) then and no buyers' remorse. None at all.... But, sure, leaving the big DSLR world can be intimidating. So you do the research as you are doing and make the decision without fear or diffidence. True. They are all damn good for image quality. A month with a mirrorless of smaller size and good quality lenses ( lucky you to have a friendly budget for this choice) will ease you mind. Others have gone this path and none wound up in a photographic Donner's Pass blizzard or dead end, so to speak. I observe that Sony full frame will not yield the system lightness that you need,though there is argument on that. But you already have full size camera and lenses. Go for small and light. As much as your lower lumbar will enjoy!

 

More I cannot say. Can anyone really? Haunt some of the dpreview forums for a while and get the feel for what is good and what is less good...Be assured that the lenses are the winners and the cameras are a work in progress, all of them bar none.... And read David Thorpe review of his m4/3 if you have time since he has had a long trail of pro cameras including Der Leica and many others...

<p>All these interesting and excellent responses indicate a couple of things to me and also from the other recent thread, "make the switch" by Glenn Cunningham. Full frame mirrorless cameras with fast zooms lose much of their weight advantage over DSLR's. With small primes or first quality slow zooms some of that advantage returns. It's a different order of magnitude for APS-C and micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras. One can have a pretty light weight and compact system with M4/3 and also, but less so with APS-C.<br>

My Nikon D800E and the "trinity," 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 weigh just short of 10 lb. My Fuji "trinity," albeit with a slower wide lens, of 10-24, 16-55, 50-140, are around half the weight of the Nikon set. I no longer use M4/3 so have not calculated their advantage.<br>

So, it all really comes down to sensor size, and its related correlate, lens size. Some argue that even full frame 24x36mm is a compromise and that one needs medium format digital, eg Phase One, Hasselblad or Pentax. Most do not. Some say APS-C is just too small for really good prints. I won't go into the "ability to crop" argument because if you're cropping a lot and often, you need a photography course, or new lenses, not a new camera.<br>

I am personally with the group that finds APS-C to be the sweet spot. Large enough to make decent, not huge prints (and people talk more about big prints than actually make them), but small enough to be portable on a hike or trip. I'm one who found a bit more noise than I like with M43 though many people make excellent images with them. In my heart I'd like to justify full frame because... it's FULL FRAME, but cannot based, on comparing my D800E to my Fuji X T-1 at the sizes I print, usually 9x13 and occasional 13x20. <br>

We are fortunate to have so many choices today, limited for most of us only by cost. Some become almost paralyzed by the dizzying array of cameras and lenses that make pretty darn good images from cameras like the Sony Rx100 with its 1" sensor to full frame beauties like the Sony AR7II with its 42MP full frame sensor, and ultimately to the Phase 100MP sensor. It's easy to get caught up in the frenzy and forget that enjoying oneself and making images is what it's really all about. I'd recommend a recent podcast by Brooks Jensen, editor and publisher of "Lenswork," LW0964, 7/29, "My Camera Philosophy," in which he makes HIS case for what HE wants in a camera. It may differ from your desires but it is thought provoking nonetheless. Enjoy.</p>

<p>Eric B, I guess it also depends on what one considers "huge" and conversely "small" prints. I would suggest that those who might say that APS-C is too small for really good prints may just not know how to shoot, or process a photo for printing.</p>

<p>"might say that APS-C is too small for really good prints may just not know how to shoot, or process a photo for printing".</p>

<p>Or, just full of it.</p>

<p>Editing/software...lets not forget it. A photo from a awful lens (Sony 50mm 1.8), blows highlights...just not nice...</p>

<p>But software has sort of rescued it..sort of.</p><div></div>

<p>A lens must have 30% better resolution, CA, etc. to produce the same image quality on an APS-C sensor as full-frame. There is as much difference between APS-C and FF as between FF and medium format digital. This is a serious goal, because a lens must have 4 times the resolution of a sensor before its contribution to the results can be ignored. Smaller sensors have smaller cells for the same resolution, hence more noise. Presence of an anti-aliasing filter is likely to degrade the image more for APS-C, since greater enlargement is required for display.</p>

<p>I would like to know how a lens (e.g., Sony 50/1.8) affects whether highlights are blown. I would not equate lack of detail (resolution) in highlights with overexposure. In the example below you can almost make out the direction the thread was twisted.<br /> <br /> Cotton Twill at roughly same perspective as the T-shirt above<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18274633-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="600" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>people talk more about big prints than actually make them)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that! Times ten...</p>

<p>Who prints? Who drives 185 mph?</p>

<p>Sometimes its nice to know you can.</p>

<p>Look at these various POTW forums. You sure can't tell one photo from another by sensor size or camera price. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Look at these various POTW forums. You sure can't tell one photo from another by sensor size or camera price.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Exactly how large are the photos in POTW, 700 pixels maximum? That's equivalent to a wallet-sized print at 300 dpi.

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>And thats the point. The vast majority of photos are being uploaded, not printed. Even printed magazines can't make much use of the full frame "advantage".</p>

<p>Most publications ask for a 300 dpi image, which would be 19 MP for a double spread (my phone is not ringing). An 18"x 12" print is not all that large, but is still 20 MP at 300 dpi. A source less than 80 MP would still limit the sharpness noticeably, so 42 MP (Sony A7Rii) would not be overkill. I've made prints larger than that from a 12 MP Nikon or a 16 MP Hasselblad, subject to resampling and sharpening. Five years ago, what choice did you have. Now there are choices.</p>

<p>Getting a good print is sweet, but to expect that every time the button is pressed is worthy of 30X40s is a real ego and one who is possibly full of himself, or herself. This is becoming ping pong in confusion. 3 yrs ago these forums were full of the need for small and light, now that we have that, monster prints too? C'Mon.</p>