Light APS-C

[milan_moudgill]

Doing a commission for Nat Geo Traveller, where I need to travel as light as possible.

 

So now looking for advice on an APS-C camera, and two 2.8 lenses covering 16-70 range equivalents to a 35mm system.

 

Not considering the Sony A7 series FFs. (because of cost, and little overall weight advantage). Not looking at micro 4/3s.

 

The system should be capable of delivering a great magazine double-spread (11" x 16" @ 350dpi approx), with juice to spare.

 

Besides that I would like a wifi trigger capability, at least 5fps, fast focussing system, good low-light handling, and possibly a Bulb mode,

and a hot shoe.

 

Video capabilities are immaterial, as is a built-in flash.

 

I am looking for a handsome weight reduction compared to a 5DIII (860gm), Canon 16-35 2.8 (635gm) and Canon 24-70 2.8 (805gm)

 

Which camera system/s would you recommend? (Body plus lenses).

 

If you were to ask 'what is your budget, I might keep that as a lesser consideration. But to put a figure to this, maybe 3000 dollars tops.

 

Thanks in advance!

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd skip zooms, and get a few primes instead - f/2.8 zooms are always going to be relatively large and heavy. Given your description, my choice would be a Fuji (XT1 given your wants) with the 3, maybe 4, primes (18mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm /1.2 for example, or instead of 18, their 16mm and 23mm instead, which I'd prefer probably, even if that makes for a bigger kit).</p>

[Ken Katz]

The Fuji X system has an f2.8 standard zoom available and an F4 super WA zoom (with IS), so perhaps a system with a combination of zooms and primes may work for you. You will have to determine if 16mp is enough resolution vs the 22MP Canon.

 

Samsung has fast zooms and the new 28mp camera has gotten excellent reviews. Its unclear how much lighter that system would be compared with APSC DSLRs. I don't think Sony NEX (APSC) has any f2.8 zooms or a large selection of high quality primes. They seem to be concentrating on their FF offerings.

[andylynn]

Fuji has excellent 10-24 and 16-50 lenses. AFAIK nobody makes an ultra wide f/2.8 zoom for mirrorless.

 

I actually have the combination Wouter recommends - X-T1 and 18/35/56. It doesn't go as wide as what you're talking

about but the quality is very hard to beat.

[famico]

<p>Would agree that an X-T1 is a likely candidate for your requirements.</p>

[phillips]

<p>I agree with Wouter on the advice to skip the f/2.8 zooms. I have the X-T1; there a number of lens combinations available-although a heavier lens, I really like the 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6- it has excellent image stabilization, is weather resistant and covers a focal length range most used in my travel applications. Beside the weight, my X-T1 and 3 lens outfit (10-24 mm, 23 mm, and 18-135mm) fit under the aircraft seat.</p>

[milan_moudgill]

This is great!

Thanks for your responses. Let me study the Fuji X offerings and get back.

 

Kenneth which 22mmp Canon are you recommending?

 

The trick, I think, will be to come up with a lens system that will suit my needs, are light enough, and not cumbersome to

deploy.

 

Meanwhile, looking forward to any other lens advice.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Even though you posted this in the mirrorless forum, I don't see a restriction to mirrorless in your post - so how about Nikon D5500 (420g) (or equivalent Canon body) with Tokina 11-16/2.8 (550g) and Sigma 17-50/2.8 (565g)? Or step up to the Nikon D7200 (675g) - AFAIK the current DX low-light champion.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I use Sony cameras, so maybe look at the new ones there. I also really like the Fuji system - so IMO it's a choice between Fuji and Sony.<br /><br />Small DSLRs may be light but they are larger physically and their lenses are also larger. Also, from what I have seen and heard, Fuji's lenses are superior to Nikon's or Canon's (but that's not exactly a high bar, there).</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Does the 7200 and the lenses suggested start to get pretty big? Its sure a consideration with fast AF and good low light, but I think the way the OP stated his wants I'd go with the X-T1 </p>

[Ken Katz]

"which 22mmp Canon are you recommending?"

 

I was not recommending any Canon, but was responding to your comparison to a 5DIII, which I assume you currently own, and the anticipated resolution you are expecting from any replacement system. You should just note that if you are considering a 16mp camera, that it has less resolution that a 5DIII and you will need to make sure that it meets your objectives.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd look at maybe at 2x XT1, which will fit all your body requirements, with 10-24 and 18-55. if you can get away with f/4 on the long end of the zoom, you get considerable weight savings over the 16-55/2.8. the Fuji primes are excellent, but there's no native 50mm which would get you to 75mm equiv. i might add the 35/1.4 for low-light. you could even shave more weight with XT10 or XE2, but you'd lose the bigger viewfinder of the XT1.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the only other real possibility, if Sony A7-series and m4/3 are out, is Sony A6000, but i dont think they make E-mount 2.8 zoom lenses for those. right now Fuji is the only manufacturer making pro-spec APS-C zooms. although nominally a kit lens, the 18-55 is comparable in optical quality to the nikon 24-70/2.8, but its a LOT smaller and has stabilization. also the Fuji 10-24 is an f/4. AFAIK, there is no wide APS-C zoom which starts at 10 or 11mm and has constant 2.8. Fuji does make a 14/2.8 which is excellent, but that's a 21mm equivalent, so not close to 16mm on full frame. Zeiss also makes a 12/2.8 for Fuji but it's not optically better than the Fuji 14mm.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>FWIW, the difference in resolution between 16Mpx and 24Mpx is about 20%. In order to double the resolution of a 16Mpx sensor, you need 64Mpx. And, finally, the Fuji does not have a low-pass filter, whereas the 5DIII probably does, so they're closer than you think. DR is similar between the two.</p>

[milan_moudgill]

<p>You are right, there is nothing restricting the search to within mirrorless cameras. Yet, whatever the choice, I am looking at a 'substantial' weight advantage over my Canon kit:<br>

Canon 5DIII (860gm)<br>

Canon 24-70 2.8 (805gm)<br />Canon 16-35 2.8 (635gm)</p>

<p>The XT-1 with battery and card is 440gm.</p>

<p>The various Fuji lens options are:<br>

16 f 1.4<br />1000 USD<br />375gm<br /><br /><br />18mm f/2<br />600 USD<br />118gm<br /><br /><br />23mm f/1.4<br />900 USD<br />301gm<br /><br />35mm f/1.4<br />600 USD<br />187gm<br /><br />56mm /1.2<br />1000 USD<br />405gm</p>

<p>10-24 f4<br />1000 USD<br />410gm<br /><br />18-55 f2.8/4<br />700 USD<br />330gm<br /><br />16-55 2.8<br />1200 USD<br />655 gm</p>

<p>The body, with the 18, 35 and 56 weighs in nicely. However my shooting style tends to gravitate to what might be covered by the 10-24.</p>

 

[andylynn]

Get the 18-55 in a package deal with the X-T1 for an extra $150, that's a no brainer. Some of the primes can be bought

from Keh at a lower price.

[milan_moudgill]

<p>Background:<br>

This is a solo cycling piece that will take me into the rain shadow of the Himalaya. And the trip is unsupported by vehicle. I expect poor infrastructure on the way.<br>

<br />The weather sealing makes the Fuji an attractive option. (The monsoon will be peaking in July, and in the rain shadow, further up, there will be dust – lots of dust)<br>

In this exercise, I am not looking to match the 5DIII output. The search is for a system that will adequately cover my needs while being a 'light' kit.<br>

The X-T10 is 60gm lighter, but sadly is not weather sealed. Besides the mag loss in the viewfinder.<br>

<br />The struggle, when selecting the lenses, is going to be about the number of lens, versus the 'low light ability' of the kit. I do not wish to take more than two lenses, to reduce need to change in the field – and therefore the zooms. The primes look beautiful, but for the reasons above, I am gravitating towards the 10-24 and the 18-55, as suggested by Eric. (The inability to open up wide is a compromise I need to live with I guess).<br>

The 18-55 is more appealing than the 16-55, being half its weight. At the same time 10-24, at 410gm, is not exactly light.<br>

<br />Not considering two bodies.<br>

<br />Here is where this gets even more interesting – the editorial concept will involve the cycle (and myself at times), featuring in the frame, and therefore the need for the remote. Not looking at the phone app. See this: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005UJN058/" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005UJN058/</a><br>

After harping about weight, the crazy thing is a tripod will need to be added to the kit! And now once the camera kit is out of the way, I will need to figure that one out.<br>

Is a tripod another post? Or can I consider asking for one here? Looking for light 4-5ft tripod that will allow exposures of a few seconds.<br>

Hey, I really appreciate the inputs provided here. Thanks everyone.</p>

[andylynn]

If you're in danger of being in a monsoon, get one or more weather resistant lenses. The 18-55 is great but I'd be nervous

about using it in a storm.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i would think about the 18-135 just for the WR properties and all in one zoom range. hate to have to change lenses in a snow/rain/dust storm, although the 10-24 sounds like it could be your main lens, except for its lack of WR. i skipped the 18 personally and got the 14 and the 27, plus the 35. the 18-55 is a revelation if you're used to a FF zoom -- the nikon 24-70 is 100g heavier than the canon equivalent, so that's 1/3rd the weight and plenty of optical goodness. that lens almost feels like cheating sometimes, because it's not far below the primes, and is quite good if you can only take one lens.</p>

<p>but... if you're absolutely sure you're going to hit inclement weather, dust sealing may be more important than a slow variable aperture or wideness, so you could swap the 18-55 for the 18-135, which is light for its extended range at 490g. in that case, the 35 makes sense since that can be a low light specialist and only weighs 187 grams -- it looks bigger with the hood attached but it's practically a paperweight in a bag. ive seen used prices as low as $350. i can see the logic in a two-zoom kit for what you're doing, but i'm always going to want an ultrawide, and i'm always going to want a fast prime, personally. if i have those, an element-fortified superzoom makes more sense, probably, than a zoom which has less than half the range. yeah, you probably lose a little bit of IQ compared to the shorter zoom. but the 35 pairs well with 10-24 and 18-135 since you would have three lenses which all do different things well. so i guess i'm with Andy on this, 10-24/35/18-135 would be the sensible call in that scenario. as much as i want to recommend the 18-55, it makes far less sense to have a weather-resistant body without at least one WR lens in monsoon season. and Fuji currently only makes three of those. ive traveled in SE Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa a bit, and the weather can hit swiftly.</p>

[milan_moudgill]

<p>I like where you are going with this Eric. Thanks.I too agree with the proposed set. Makes sense to me. 10-24/35/18-135 for now.<br>

BTW, the used prices you remember looking at – were they off eBay? Or?<br>

<br />Thanks for the inputs everyone. Really love what happens on photo.net, which happened again on this post.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Battery life is worse with mirrorless - so consider this when looking around. I would take a table top tripod like the Leica one and a small ballhead. This is truly portable, unlike a normal travel tripod.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The entry level DSLRs from Nikon and Canon are so teeny these days. I wouldn't rule them out.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the used prices you remember looking at – were they off eBay? Or?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i was quoting Craiglist, but the fuji x-forum is probably another place to look. B&H has one now for $350. looks like the 18-135 is $300 cheaper right now at amazon than adorama too, that might be a sale price.</p>