lightweight camera and system needed.

<p>Hello, I need a high quality camera and lens system that is lightweight. I currently have Canon camera’s with L series lenses but my back stiffens up after lugging around that gear. I have looked into Leica M series digital camera but they only provide about 10 ounces of difference between the Canon camera and lenses. Is there another option that you could recommend? Thanks....David</p>

<p>Only system worth considering is micro 4/3 like the Olympus Pen or OM-D series. Everything else is larger and heavier, especially the lenses.</p>

<p>The XE1 in combination with the 27mm weights next to nothing. AF is not great on the XE1 with this lens but subsequent XE models and XT10 are much better. </p>

<p>it’s true, the lenses are often the heaviest part of the system...i have a Canon 5D but opted to go with the Canon Rebel T5 to save a little weight but when you add a 24-70mm lens to it, the weight still remains an issue...</p>

<p>I am also wanting a lens system that is comparable to the L series lenses from Canon...i think that keeps pointing me towards Leica...</p>

It would help to know what lenses you currently carry that you would want to duplicate in an alternative system.

Since there are no M system zooms its unclear what you are comparing your Canon L lenses to. Also it seems

reasonable that if you are considering a Leica M digital alternative that you have a rather robust budget in

mind.

<p>i would probably use the 50mm and maybe the 90mm lens...i would imagine the 50mm lens would meet my needs...and yes, the investment would be costly but that also becomes a consideration and does not rule out Leica...</p>

<p>Put the Fuji X series on your short list. An XT10 and a prime or 3 and you're all set.</p>

<p>I use a little pocket size camera that's light and small with a pancake lens ... and it works great with the big L lens! <strong><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless">www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless</a></strong></p>

 

<p>I can describe my thought process and results, but ultimately the OP will have to consider his own priorities and make a personal decision.</p>

<p>It's a big leap from DSLR to rangefinder if you are serious about a Leica M. Quality wise, you'd be hard pressed to do better, but forget zooms, closeups and long lenses. You save a lot of weight through simplification by that route. An M2 , 35 (or 28), 50 and 90 mm lens worked for me for 35 years. After 10 years of Nikon, it was an easy transition to an M9 digital for the same reasons the OP expressed. That lasted for about 9 months.</p>

<p>For a full-frame camera, the Sony A7Rii is the same size and weight as a Leica M9, the same price new as an used Leica, and takes Leica lenses, or Canon L lenses and many others. For me, the Sony was a Leica with benefits - full-time live view, in-body image stabilization, use of legacy lenses, and extraordinary image quality.</p>

<p>I have gradually replaced my Leica and Nikon lenses with Sony/Zeiss made for the Sony. I have four nice primes, 25/2, 35/2, 50/2 and 85/1.8 which make a lightweight travel kit. I added other lenses for better coverage, including a 70-200/4 and 24-70/2.8, which builds up the weight if I carry everything, but still a 30% reduction from a comparable Nikon kit.</p>

<p>Sony APS-C cameras use the same lens mount, but the field of view changes. You'd need to shop around for wide angle lenses, but otherwise have a future-proof system with a lot of flexibility.</p>

<p>I have nothing against Fuji and others, but you're stuck with APS-C or M43 sensors, and possibly lenses limited to those formats. I think the future is with full-frame, which is where the most interesting developments are focused.</p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras have extremely limited battery capacity compared to your Canon DSLR. There is less space for a battery, and a lot of things drawing power while the camera is on. Instead of thousands of images, you'll get 350 or fewer before running out of battery. Instead of dawn to dusk, you'll get 2 hours or so of idle time. That's life! Batteries are inexpensive ($50 or less) and don't take much room. I carry 6, including one in a spare body. For stationary operation, I use a USB battery pack, which lasts all day.</p>

<p>thanks everyone...i’ll have to check out the systems people have mentioned here...image quality is very important to me and my Canon L series lenses have been up to the task but I don’t have fun anymore carrying around those weights...i find myself not wanting to take my camera with me anymore...i guess i’m trying to simply my life by having a couple prime lenses and a camera, both optimally lightweight or better yet, a good orthopedic guy/gal who really knows what they’re doing...</p>

<p>David - I'm a longtime Leica (film) user, and on the digital side use Nikon and Olympus M4/3. For me cost is always an issue, but quality definitely comes into play. However, these days I do little printing, and while full frame would be nice, I've grown accustomed to very effectively using cropped bodies and good post processing. My grab & go is the M4/3, which uses all of my Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta & Pentax lenses (via adapters) as well as some really good ones designed by Panasonic, Leica and Olympud for M4/3. Edward makes a number of strong points...many of which may be more relevant to a pro than an amateur. The Sony he mentions gets really good marks across a wide band of Leica users. I'm a little more humble, but quite satisfied with the weight reduction in the M4/3. Best advice is to get your hands on what interests you to see how it feels and performs for your type of work....then you can make an informed decision.</p>

<p> “I have nothing against Fuji and others, but you're stuck with APS-C or M43 sensors, and possibly lenses limited to those formats. I think the future is with full-frame, which is where the most interesting developments are focused”. Edward.</p>

<p>An Urban myth….the market for APC/M43 is much larger than full frame.</p>

<p>I doubt if anyone can tell, whether a print of A3 size or larger, was taken on APC/M43, or the so called full frame cameras. Indeed, numerous sites including Luminous Landscapes/Ken Rockwell, have exposed this myth. The advantage of the so called full frame is if you want to print super large, or want to crop your photographs to the extreme. Yes, slightly better low light performance and dof.</p>

<p>“image quality is very important to me and my Canon L series lenses have been up to the task but I don’t have fun anymore carrying around those weights” David.</p>

<p>Image quality from my experience is about the sensor and lens quality…it is not about the size of the sensor. How a sensor performs/lens in different lighting conditions is an important factor to take into account. Size/weight matters…who wants to purchase a wheel barrow to move their gear around.</p>

<p>Full frame is where most manufactures would like folks to spend their money. Why because that’s where the big bucks are and it has little to do with the quality of images or anything else.</p>

<p>" I think the future is with full-frame, which is where the most interesting developments are focused”. Edward.</p>

<p>Fuji x range of cameras, Sony rx100's, Olympus....</p>

<p><em>“I have nothing against Fuji and others, but you're stuck with APS-C or M43 sensors, and possibly lenses limited to those formats. I think the future is with full-frame, which is where the most interesting developments are focused”. Edward.</em><br /> <em><br /></em>yes, wrong as wrong can be. mirrorless cameras can actually use almost any lens, crop or full frame (with appropriate adapter)<br /> <a href="/www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless">www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless</a></p>

<p>What I meant was that a lens dedicated to a Fuji (APS-C) cannot be used on a full frame camera. There are adapters which allow legacy lenses to be used on a Fuji, but you lose the functionality of a dedicated lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji x range of cameras, Sony rx100's, Olympus....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sony A7xxx, Leica M, Leica SL, Zeiss (lenses), Sony (lenses). The most POPULAR cameras are cell phones. I'm referring to the most INTERESTING developments.</p>

<p>With regard to weight, I find my tolerance is decreasing for any weight suspended in front of my chest. I removed the neck strap from my Sony and replaced it with a Sun Sniper, which hangs diagonally. In addition to a more central weight distribution, it keeps the camera out of the way and from bouncing around as I walk. It also allows me to carry a heavy lens like a Sony 24-70/2.8 with ease, as well as anything attached to a Nikon D3.</p>

 

<p>Well, there are lots of choices, and almost all the mirrorless systems are great. You've been given some good advice above. The Fuji will out-resolve or match any Canon save for the 5Ds. That fact alone cannot be the only basis for choosing a better system, but it's interesting nonetheless.</p>

<p>I am torn between Fuji and Micro 4/3 right now - but only hypothetically. I don't have any plans to buy another camera soon. But measure twice, cut once.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a big leap from DSLR to rangefinder if you are serious about a Leica M.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed - I have tried a Leica M Typ 240 and the experience is miles away from using a DSLR (or a mirrorless with EVF, for that matter). Some swear by it, all I could do was swear at it - definitely not for me, not even taking the exorbitant prices into account. At least the Type 240 had live view (but who would want to hold a Leica at arms' length?); to get some decent framing capabilities, the attachment EVF was the only option - might as well go for a Sony A7 Series camera then. Edward said it nicely: Sony ... Leica with benefits.<br>

FWIW, I use a Sony A7 with a couple M-mount lenses (15, 21, 40, 90) when I want something different, but the majority of my shooting is with a Nikon DSLR system.</p>

<p>I like rangefinder style cameras including Leica, but that something the OP really has to try for himself. The Leica's are especially expensive as are their lenses. If you like the rangefinder style, a good compromise of great image quality and weight is the Fuji X-Pro2, or for a more DSLR style in a smaller camera, the X-T2 or 1. It kind of depends on what lenses you want to use. Great thing about Mirrorless is exactly the point Edward makes. they take their native lenses and with adopters just about any FF lens out there. Again you have to decide as to what lenses and their weight. If you want absolute weight saving, with excellent lenses than the Panasonic GX8 or & G7 or the Olympus versions are great. They each take the other's lenses. If you like video the Panasonics are tremendous and they can take fabulous pictures that can easily print at 16 or 18 x 24. I've done it several times. So really, people are probably firing more possible choices at David. Curious to see what you end up getting.</p>

<p>When you buy a camera, you are also buying into a pantheon of lenses and accessories. Make sure the system, as a whole, meets your current and anticipated needs. Make sure, as best as possible, that the "system" is not flickering near the end of its life.</p>

<p>Thanks for the many responses...some of the camera’s mentioned are lightweight but often the lenses are the heavier part of the equipment so I have to take that into consideration...i now use a Canon Rebel T5 which is very lightweight but as I’ve said before, the L lenses are not...i would greatly prefer a lightweight lens on a lightweight body with the lenses being comparable to Canon L series lenses which are far superior imo to their regular line of optics...the body is less important to me than the lenses...I have back discomfort when carrying heavier equipment and I’ve tried various supports to alleviate the pain but so far I haven’t found the right combo...</p>

<p>After extensive research and angsting over how to compliment my collection of Nikkor AIS lenses, I decided to go with Fuji, the XT-1 with the knowledge of committing to a whole new system. The weight issue is a slam dunk, the tipping point for me was the image quality the the Fuji X-Trans sensor offers, the build quality of the XT-1, the ergonomics of the XT-1 and the insight of Fuji respecting and listening to Photographers and their customer base as if they, fuji are themselves Photographers. A camera designed for real world use eliminating classic Photographers excuses not to get the shot. The XT-1 presses me to fill my full creative potential as a lightweight go anywhere camera. The XT-1 was also voted worlds number one travel camera, so others agree. This post got my attention when the word Leica was a mention. Want a Leica? Get a Leica, but do your research and when your tired of researching, do it again. I did and it all whittled down to Fuji. I'm presuming we're talking about the need for a travel camera.</p>

<p><em>"Thanks for the many responses...some of the camera’s mentioned are lightweight but often the lenses are the heavier part of the equipment so I have to take that into consideration"</em><br>

<em><br /></em>yes, if you're shooting wide you can use the smaller pancake style lens but the longer lens are still going to big and heavy<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless">www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sony A7 or Fuji X series are reasonable alternatives. </p>

<p>when the OP says full frame systems cause back pain, and a respondent replies that only FF cameras are worth considering, that's a clear sign of disinterest in the actual query being raised. FF lenses can't really be made smaller than APS-C or m4/3 lenses, so that will always be a factor against the small/light ethos. there are of course fixed lens options like the RX1 and Leica Q, but for compact system cameras with extensive lens options and reasonable to excellent IQ, Fuji and M4/3 are where it's at. You could of course torture yourself with a Sony A6300 and its limited lens set, and sample variation, or get an A7 series camera and stick to the smaller primes, but there's no guarantee you'll have much more than a lighter wallet to show for it. The RX1 is a full frame compact, but it doesnt offer a better shooting experience than the X100t. Likewise, the A7 series will give you more resolution than Fujis, but you're either stuck with the under-specced f/4 lenses or the overpriced 2.8 zooms. My andvice is to actually handle a m4/3 or Fuji body, then check out the lenses which appeal to you, before selecting a body. i definitely wouldnt buy a Sony on the advice of someone whose main criteria is snobbiness. Which isnt known to be an objective trait. </p>