Make the Switch?

eric_arnold · August 3, 2016

That is a misleading comment because the weight savings is mainly the result of switching to a smaller format. Of course a 50-140mm lens is lighter than a 70-200mm with the same maximum aperture, but the 50-140 is the "equivalent" because of the switch from FX to APS-C, not because of camera brands or SLR vs. mirrorless.

</blockquote>

Not to be nitpicky here, but i'm not sure how it can truthfully be said that that comment is "misleading." The fact is the Fuji trinity is 40% lighter than the Nikon trinity. Yes, the smaller format weighs less. That's an obvious point. It's also incorrect to say that DSLRs don't generally weigh more than mirrorless bodies, since they do, across the board, except for maybe the Leica SL. I guess if you're going to argue a point which wasn't really being contended -- that 50-140 and 70-200 are equivalent lenses for different sensor formats -- you'd be correct, but it's sort of like saying "the sky is blue" in response to "water is wet." The last point is also irrelevant because Nikon doesn't make a mirrorless APS-C ILC, nor do they make a 50-140 for DX.

ShunCheung · August 3, 2016

Eric, the problem is that you are still comparing different formats. Moreover, it has already been established earlier on this thread that if you compare 35mm format, the higher-end Sony mirrorless lenses represent essentially no size and weight savings against similar higher-end Canon and Nikon DSLR lenses. The mirrorless bodies maybe a bit lighter, but once you factor in the entire system as a whole (body + several lenses), the difference is minor. In other words, keep on emphasizing the small differences in body size and weight without considering lenses is also misleading.

Additionally, the OP's Canon 5D Mark III is larger and so was Eric Brody's Nikon D800E, but Canon also has the 6D and Nikon has the D750 if one prefers something smaller, without changing formats.

If one wants to compare Fuji vs. Canon or Nikon size and weight, since Fuji mirrorless is APS-C, one should at least use APS-C Canon or Nikon DSLRs and lenses for an apple-to-apple comparison.

There is no one right answer for SLR or mirroress as well as 35mm vs. APS-C vs. 4/3 .... There are trade offs all around. Again, it is up to the OP and each individual to decide what the best compromise is for that individual.

Sandy Vongries · August 3, 2016

Suppose I've been at it too long -- my mirrorless kit is light, tiny and flexible -- probably more flexible than my Nikons with the equipment I have. I take a lot of pretty decent photos with mirrorless, but when it comes down to it, and I have a project or trip that is important to me, they become "lite" like beer, better than no beer, but not the real thing. Just me, but I reach for the DSLRs. Have no plans of getting rid of either kit.<div>

00e54Y-564697684.jpg.297ace44f5f8b834520591744a452b17.jpg

</div>

stevenseelig · August 3, 2016

I have transitioned from Nikon (D800 and their best lenses f2.8 24-70 and 70-200) to Sony a7RII and the Sony is lighter and smaller, BUT if you include comparable lenses, the weight/size advantage is pretty insignificant. Fundamentally, glass is glass so the only way to really achieve a weight/size advantage is to use slower lenses. Sony does have f4 24-70 and 70-200 that are ok, but not great. They have come out with their G-master f2.8 24-70-70-200 that are suppose to be excellent.

Somewhat to my surprise, I have switched from shooting zooms, I have gone with primes (28 f2.0 and its 21mm converter, f2.8, 55mm f1.8, and the 85mm f1.8) on the Sony body. With these lenses, and the a7RII, I believe I can easily capture pictures of better IQ then my Nikon system. In fact, I have not picked up my Nikon bodies in 6 months, and not sure what would motivate me to do so

donbright · August 4, 2016

What drives the point of the thread is not only weight and yes the comparison between two different formats is usually easily resolved simply by the past known knowns of format differences and obvious image impression, but we are in a new era, and without picking a brand, the APS sensor and its image quality results seems to have earned its place in the smaller platform for a long time to come. Had it not been for the omission of the AA filter, we probably wouldn't be talking about this. Lots of success there. The term used often lately is, "Punching above its weight." This is why people are compelled to make the switch! This is a very interesting period we have arrived at in Photography IMO.

Uhooru · August 4, 2016

To the OP, yes, it makes sense. But you might want to rent one over the weekend and try it out. And as other's have said, you might want to hold on to your other gear until your sure. Also, I'm not sure how the Fuji does macro. You might want to check out what lenses they have for that.

eric_brody · August 4, 2016

Hi Barry, I've used Fuji's 60mm f/2.4 macro lens extensively, with and without the Fuji extension tube. I've made many focus stacks with Zerene Stacker and many images non-stacked and it is nothing short of excellent. It is a 90mm full frame equivalent and gives me decent distance. I have worked both in my "studio" as well as in the field.

I am looking forward to the upcoming 80mm macro to see if it is better but this one will be hard to beat. When used as a general purpose lens, eg for portraits, it is slow to focus but for macro I use manual focus exclusively.

There is a trick to using filters larger than the tiny 39mm ones but it is cheap and easy. I bought an inexpensive 39mm UV filter, took out the glass and use it as a spacer so I can use my 39-77 step up ring with my set of 77mm ND and polarizing filters. If you do not have the spacer, when the lens retracts upon shutting off the camera, or using autofocus, the camera hangs up.

I'm not a Fuji fanboy, I believe in choosing the best tool for the job but as an amateur, I choose to be careful in my expenditures. I do not believe in cameras and lenses as "investments," they are an expense. I've not yet sold a piece of camera gear for more than I paid except for some older Leica gear that I had purchased used to begin with. It's just that the Fuji seems to fit my needs. It may or may not fit some one else's. That's why there are Nikons, Canons, Sony's, Pentax's and everything else. I dearly loved my 4x5 but have not used it in some time simply because it is too difficult (film, processing, scanning etc, not the camera itself) and I'm happy with my prints and with the handling of my Fuji.

eric_arnold · August 4, 2016

Eric, the problem is that you are still comparing different formats. Moreover, it has already been established earlier on this thread that if you compare 35mm format, the higher-end Sony mirrorless lenses represent essentially no size and weight savings against similar higher-end Canon and Nikon DSLR lenses. The mirrorless bodies maybe a bit lighter, but once you factor in the entire system as a whole (body + several lenses), the difference is minor. In other words, keep on emphasizing the small differences in body size and weight without considering lenses is also misleading.

</blockquote>

Shun, TBH, this is only a "problem" for you. It's also entirely misleading to take one system -- Sony FF MILC -- and project that onto the entire mirrorless segment. And even then, what you are saying about lenses is only true with two recently-announced lenses, the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8. Sony also has f/4 zooms which are considerably lighter, as well as many primes.

With Fuji vs. APS-C or FF DSLRs, it's possible to choose combinations of bodies and lenses which save either a little or a lot of weight. Obviously, if you are going for 2.8 zooms and super-teles, the weight savings will be less than with pancakes and smaller primes. In my experience, a smaller Fuji body like the XE1 with the 18-55/2.8-4 delivers big-time on IQ, while cutting down considerably on weight and size, compared to my D3s and 24-70/2.8. It also weighs less than my D300 with the 17-50/2.8 OS. Other than the constant aperture at the long end, i don't lose much. In practical terms, when traveling, i can carry two mirrorless bodies + 4-5 lenses, cables, extra batteries, etc., in a fannypack. An equivalent system in either DX or FX would require a fully-loaded backpack.

Additionally, the OP's Canon 5D Mark III is larger and so was Eric Brody's Nikon D800E, but Canon also has the 6D and Nikon has the D750 if one prefers something smaller, without changing formats.

</blockquote>

OK, but these are smaller bodies, which doesn't do anything about the size of full-frame lenses. If i stick a 70-200 VRII on a D750, i'm still carrying a bazooka.

If one wants to compare Fuji vs. Canon or Nikon size and weight, since Fuji mirrorless is APS-C, one should at least use APS-C Canon or Nikon DSLRs and lenses for an apple-to-apple comparison.

</blockquote>

Why? In this case, the OP is considering downsizing from a 5DIII to a Fuji XT2. Are you saying he should compare a system he doesn't have, instead of one he has? Other than making you feel better, what would that prove? His questions were more about image quality and equivalent lenses if he switches from full-frame, not about how does a crop-sensor Canon compare to a crop-sensor Fuji. I'm not sure why a Nikon purist who aapparently hasn't actually ever shot with Fuji or other mirrorless systems would feel the need to hold out on the mirrorless forum, and keep making the same point over and over again, Theoretical logic is fine in theoretical situations, but in the real world, there is no law that everything has to follow consistent logic.

ShunCheung · August 4, 2016

Eric Arnold, this is <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1168957">Glenn Cummings</a>' thread. IMO our primary objective is to help him make an informed choice, and most people are giving him sound advice such as trying out a new mirrorless system first and make sure that he is happy before selling his old system.

However, when I see misleading comments, I wouldn't hesitate to point them out. If you disagree, we can agree to disagree. Incidentally, in case you are unaware of it, I have reviewed a couple of mirrorless cameras for photo.net a while back, including an Olympus micro 4/3: http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/pen/e-pl3/review/

So far I haven't bought any mirrorless camera myself because they don't yet meet my needs, but I usually pay close attention to new technologies as I know that they change quickly and something that can improve my photography could appear any time.

Uhooru · August 5, 2016

Eric, the problem is that you are still comparing different formats.

</blockquote>

I think that is exactly what the OP wants, to compare the different formats.

His questions were more about image quality and equivalent lenses if he switches from full-frame, not about how does a crop-sensor Canon compare to a crop-sensor Fuji.

</blockquote>

I think that is the gist of the thread. What can he expect in weight reduction and IQ in shifting to mirrorless Fuji and their cropped equivalent focal lengths. He knows what his cannon body and lenses can do, how big and heavy they are, wants to know what the XT-2 and lenses can do in comparison.

ShunCheung · August 5, 2016

Barry, if you look back to the earlier posts, I first commented on <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17983">Eric Brody</a>'s post when he started talking about weight savings when he went from three really heavy f2.8 Nikkor zooms to Fuji APS-C mirrorless, including a Nikon 14-24mm/f2.8 that has a huge, bulging front element. And then Eric Arnold started quoting such huge weight savings when switching from Nikon (full 35mm frame) to Fuji (APS-C).

The problem is that the OP has this equipment:

I shoot with the 5D3 and four "L" lenses...17-40, 24-105, 100 Macro and 100-400.

</blockquote>

Not even one of the OP's zooms is f2.8. Other than a fairly long and big 100-400 that Eric Brody didn't have any equivalent (according to Brody's post), Glenn's lenses are much lighter to begin with, e.g. 17-40mm/f4 vs. 14-24mm/f2.8 and 24-105mm/f4 vs. 24-70mm/f2.8. Hence Glenn is never going to see the same degree of weight savings by moving to Fuji (APS-C mirrorless) as Eric Brody did.

It makes absolutely no difference to me whether the OP ends up using Canon DSLR or Fuji mirrorless, or for that matter Micro 4/3 or a smart-phone camera .... My point is that weight savings between equivalent DSLR and mirrorless with the same sensor format is very limited. True weight reduction comes from going to smaller formats so that one can use shorter lenses. Therefore, maybe the OP can also consider moving from a Canon 5D Mark III to an APS-C Canon DSLR. Just because Glenn can potentially replace his heaviest 100-400 with a 70-300 by switching to APS-C is going to save a lot of weight and bulk.

As far as digital sensors and lenses go, in these days just about any major brand has a lot of excellent lenses (as well as some low-end, consumer lenses). Even some Sigma and Tamron lenses are great nowadays. The internet is full of discussions about which brand has an extra stop of dynamic range out of 13, 14 stops. To me, it is kind of silly.

The real questions for Glenn are:

<ol>

<li>Whether APS-C (any brand) is good enough. That is something only he can decide, but as picky as I am, generally I am quite happy with APS-C although it is not my choice if I am after large prints.</li>

<li>Whether he likes mirrorless, in particular Fuji mirrorless if he goes that route. Again, only Glenn can answer for himself.</li>

<li>Whether the target system has the right lenses for him. For example, at this point Fuji only makes a 100-400mm/f5.6, no **-300mm zoom. Therefore, for the one heaviest lens in Glenn's system, he is not going to see any meaningful weight savings, although he'll get more reach from APS-C. However, if Glenn moves to a Canon APS-C DSLR, he can potentially replace his long lens with some Canon or third-party 70-300mm lens, which is certainly going to be considerably lighter than a 100-400mm/f5.6 zoom from either Fuji, Canon, or other brands.</li>

</ol>

In other words, going Fuji could potentially end up with a heavier system for Glenn (vs. other APS-C options), depending on his choices for lenses. Clearly there are a lot of trade offs for him to decide. I am merely pointing out these factors. It is Glenn's decision and he is the one who will experience the consequences.

For those who are not familiar with the Nikon 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, below is an image of it next to a 24mm/f2.8 AF-D lens. Keep in mind that both lenses are f2.8 @ 24mm, which is the long end of the zoom.<div></div>

donbright · August 5, 2016

The XT-2 mirrorless camera with Fuji glass, lightweight impeccable image quality and now with on time Autofocus performance is quite a formidable option. It's no wonder that Photographers are taking a look. The big question I think one has to ask is, How big or small of a print are you willing to live with? My findings are, and including myself, printing big is a long past endeavor. Do we really think that when we press the button its generally going to yield a print worthy to be 24X36? Maybe its time for us to get real. What is really important? Getting the shot for one and camera's that provide obstacles to get the shot, verses camera's designed to eliminate obstacles and what kind of Photography one gravitates to is the personal issue at hand. Image quality? Weight? There are choices to make. Brand loyalty? Punching out big prints with tiny camera's is still a dream. How big do you want or need to print? Because regarding the computer screen, an argument is futile.

Ed_Ingold · August 5, 2016

Size is only one part of the equation moving from a DSLR system to a mirrorless ILC. The direct optical path, generally higher resolution and flexibility of lens choices can produce much higher quality as well. The footprint of a Sony A7, for example, is much smaller than any DSLR, and comparable to a Leica M. E-mount lenses are not as small as some would like, but generally of exceptional quality.

If you assemble a kit of comparable capability, the net weight savings will probably be about 30%. At any rate, that's what I experienced, but I tend to travel heavy, with a 20#-22# Sony kit compared to a 30#-35# Nikon D3 setup. That's enough difference that I don't think twice about bringing the entire backpack with me, but I might only take one or two lenses out of the bag for a walk in the woods.

If you're into bicycles, how much do you save going from steel to aluminum? Aluminum is half the density of steel, but needs thicker sections for comparable strength (q.v., stress-fracture propagation). The net weight savings is about 30% (and the ride is twice as rough).

Uhooru · August 6, 2016

It makes absolutely no difference to me whether the OP ends up using Canon DSLR or Fuji mirrorless, or for that matter Micro 4/3 or a smart-phone camera .... My point is that weight savings between equivalent DSLR and mirrorless with the same sensor format is very limited.

</blockquote>

Shun, I know you are only trying to assist the OP, not trying to foist your preferences. But I think the weight differences for APC sized mirrorless and virtually any dslr is quite measurable, but differs depending on what lenses and camera. For instance I believe the Fuji 16-55 is about 100 grams lighter than the Nikon 17-55. The Nikon 18-70 (remember that one?) weighs in at 390g and the Fuji 18-55 is 309. Interestingly the Nikon 7200 (a like 24mp sensor) is much heavier than the XT-2, 1222g vs 507, but the Nikon D500 is only 860g. I would have thought that would have been the heaviest of the 3. Prime to prime, you may be right, the sizes seem similar for prime lenses. So, having a slow Fri night, here's some possible comparisons on primes. Fuji 23mm 1.4 (a good sized lens not big, but not small either) is 301g, the Nikon 24 2.8 (slower lens) is 355g, not a lot of difference. And the Fuji 56 1.2 (very fast lens) is 405 g, while the Nikon 50 AIS a manual lens, is less! (1 for Nikon!) at 354 g. though I'm not sure those are the right lenses to compare, but not to make too fine a point of it, basically, It appears you are correct Shun, in saying there's not a huge difference overall, at least with prime lenses, but it does seem greater differences arise in comparing zooms and bodies between the systems. So at the end of the day, if you throw them all into a bag, does the weight and size between them make a noticeable difference? I'd say it does, and of course if you drop down to compare M 4/3 systems you will definitely see a bigger difference, but then there are more image trade-offs.

fabriziogiudici · August 6, 2016

Ok, it was easy to predict that the discussion would have included many different perspectives... As I said, that's unavoidable because while it's true that mirrorless is often lighter and smaller, it's not always like that, and it largely depends on the specific models of cameras and lenses. It is what others are saying with multiple examples.

The problem with those examples is that none of them describes a realistic, full case of a switch. In case it might be helpful, I'm giving all the details of my own switch. Note that since I'm describing in details my process, I'm talking of Sony. But I don't want to assert that Sony is better than Fuji or others. My focus is on the process and subjective evaluation rather than a mere comparison of brands, to give a hint of the many things that one must take in consideration; and that, in most cases, even though you gain many things, you're likely to lose some others.

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="99" height="18">Nikon</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="578">NEX 6 + 10-18mm f/4 + 16-70mm f/4 + Sigma 30mm f/2.8</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966">Sigma 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

The first two rows are my most frequent carry-on equipment for landscape. The reduction in weight is relevant.

The third row is the additional lens for landscape details (I use long lenses also for that) and wildlife. In this case I bought a lens that is heavier than the replacement (in the equation I should add the MC-11 adapter, but in the Nikon case I should also add the 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters).

I'm not mentioning some other lenses that I have and consider specialty lenses (e.g. the Trioplan, a fish-eye and a Samyang 12mm f/2 prime that I plan to use for landscape astrophotography).

In the end, I can draw some conclusions, that apply only to my specific switch:

<ul>

<li>The weight reduction in the carry-on equipment is relevant; this was the primary target, because my neck and back pain started to have quite an impact in the pleasure of going around with a couple of cameras. Now it's back a pleasure.</li>

<li>The wildlife equipment is still heavy - but - until I see some technology revolution, I've reckoned that my neck and back pains make wildlife a matter of shooting from the car or a very short walk up to a hide;</li>

<li>The weight reduction in the overall equipment is negligible, but better than nothing; there's a space reduction, because now everything but some specialty stuff stays in a single backpack, instead of two;</li>

<li>I've expanded the flexibility because I can reach 2mm on the wide side and 100mm on the long side, and having now zooms I have all the intermediates focal lengths without the hassle of changing lens or adding/removing a focal multiplier; but the decision to go for zooms instead of a large number of primes that I previously had is not related to mirrorless vs DSRL;</li>

<li>But I've lost some f-stop at full aperture (a pity, but not so much because in the end I wasn't using them a lot in the past).</li>

<li>I have lost some efficacy in tracking moving subjects (birds, for me), but perhaps I could re-gain this capability with the a6300. I can't tell, because I got the 150-600mm only recently and in the previous two years I've given up with birds.</li>

<li>The EVF vs OVF thing is fundamental. For me, EVF is such a joy over the OVF, e.g. because I finally can enjoy manual focusing - also with specialty lenses - a thing that I'd been trying for years with the OVF and no joy.</li>

</ul>

On the quality side, the a6000 is no worse than the D7000, the NEX-6 probably just a bit worse than the D5100 with high ISO and shadow noise, but it's not relevant for me. The IQ of lenses has clearly improved (for shorter focals) and not worsened, slightly improved in some cases for the longest focals).

So, what can I say? That I'm happy of the switch, considering my specific needs and budget; but I really can't make universal assertions about mirrorless being better than DSLR, or a brand being better than another. Also, I didn't put in the equation the new stuff that Nikon introduced since when I stopped buying Nikon stuff in 2013. For instance, they have the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF VR that would bring a relevant weight reduction even for such a long focal.

Before choosing I made the same picky computations also for Fuji and MFT (but only up to a certain point in time, when I finally decided that Sony was ok for me). Fuji was just a bit heavier for my specific choice, even though I have to say that I was driven into Sony by the availability of the 16-70mm that is a fantastic range for me (Fuji has got a 18-55). The SEL1670Z was a bit delusional to me, and in the end there are reasons for which, if I re-ran the process, I could pick Fuji over Sony. OTOH, I'm very pleased by the fact that Sigma made available a very good set of lenses by means of their own adapter (which makes them almost native), which they don't offer for Fuji.

MFT happened to prove too heavy for my needs, because of the weight of quality zooms with shorter focals.

I must say that the at some point I had seriously evaluated to switch to mixed brands: Sony for shorter focals, and Fuji for the 140-400mm. This would have further reduced the overall weight and I must say I really love the Fuji ergonomics. I discarded this solution because having a single brand introduces a number of advantages: same accessories such as battery and battery chargers, the fact that having two cameras of the same brand make them an emergency replacer for the other, etc...

Summing up, my message to the OP: it really, really depends on a high number of details and subjective needs and you have to make some homework. And for some points, it can be impacted by the specific moment of history in which you switch, because two options can be so close in the evaluation that in the end the presence or absence of a favourite lens might be fundamental. The scenario might change in a couple of years, but you can't wait forever.

fabriziogiudici · August 6, 2016

Ok, it was easy to predict that the discussion would have included many different perspectives... As I said, that's unavoidable because while it's true that mirrorless is often lighter and smaller, it's not always like that, and it largely depends on the specific models of cameras and lenses. It is what others are saying with multiple examples. The problem with those examples is that none of them describes a realistic, full case of a switch. In case it might be helpful, I'm giving all the details of my own switch. Note that since I'm describing in details my process, I'm talking of Sony. But I don't want to assert that Sony is better than Fuji or others. My focus is on the process and subjective evaluation rather than a mere comparison of brands, to give a hint of the many things that one must take in consideration; and that, in most cases, even though you gain many things, you're likely to lose some others.

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="99" height="18">Nikon</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="578">NEX 6 + 10-18mm f/4 + 16-70mm f/4 + Sigma 30mm f/2.8</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966">Sigma 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

The first two rows are my most frequent carry-on equipment for landscape. The reduction in weight is relevant. The third row is the additional lens for landscape details (I use long lenses also for that) and wildlife. In this case I bought a lens that is heavier than the replacement (in the equation I should add the MC-11 adapter, but in the Nikon case I should also add the 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters). I'm not mentioning some other lenses that I have and consider specialty lenses (e.g. the Trioplan, a fish-eye and a Samyang 12mm f/2 prime that I plan to use for landscape astrophotography). In the end, I can draw some conclusions, that apply only to my specific switch:

<ul>

<li>The weight reduction in the carry-on equipment is relevant; this was the primary target, because my neck and back pain started to have quite an impact in the pleasure of going around with a couple of cameras. Now it's back a pleasure.</li>

<li>The wildlife equipment is still heavy - but - until I see some technology revolution, I've reckoned that my neck and back pains make wildlife a matter of shooting from the car or a very short walk up to a hide;</li>

<li>The weight reduction in the overall equipment is negligible, but better than nothing; there's a space reduction, because now everything but some specialty stuff stays in a single backpack, instead of two;</li>

<li>I've expanded the flexibility because I can reach 2mm on the wide side and 100mm on the long side, and having now zooms I have all the intermediates focal lengths without the hassle of changing lens or adding/removing a focal multiplier; but the decision to go for zooms instead of a large number of primes that I previously had is not related to mirrorless vs DSRL;</li>

<li>But I've lost some f-stop at full aperture (a pity, but not so much because in the end I wasn't using them a lot in the past).</li>

<li>I have lost some efficacy in tracking moving subjects (birds, for me), but perhaps I could re-gain this capability with the a6300. I can't tell, because I got the 150-600mm only recently and in the previous two years I've given up with birds.</li>

<li>The EVF vs OVF thing is fundamental. For me, EVF is such a joy over the OVF, e.g. because I finally can enjoy manual focusing - also with specialty lenses - a thing that I'd been trying for years with the OVF and no joy.</li>

</ul>

On the quality side, the a6000 is no worse than the D7000, the NEX-6 probably just a bit worse than the D5100 with high ISO and shadow noise, but it's not relevant for me. The IQ of lenses has clearly improved (for shorter focals) and not worsened, slightly improved in some cases for the longest focals). So, what can I say? That I'm happy of the switch, considering my specific needs and budget; but I really can't make universal assertions about mirrorless being better than DSLR, or a brand being better than another. Also, I didn't put in the equation the new stuff that Nikon introduced since when I stopped buying Nikon stuff in 2013. For instance, they have the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF VR that would bring a relevant weight reduction even for such a long focal. OTOH, Sony recently introduced a 70-300mm that seems to be pretty good. Before choosing I made the same picky computations also for Fuji and MFT (but only up to a certain point in time, when I finally decided that Sony was ok for me). Fuji was just a bit heavier for my specific choice, even though I have to say that I was driven into Sony by the availability of the 16-70mm that is a fantastic range for me (Fuji has got a 18-55). The SEL1670Z was a bit delusional to me, and in the end there are reasons for which, if I re-ran the process, I could pick Fuji over Sony. OTOH, I'm very pleased by the fact that Sigma made available a very good set of lenses by means of their own adapter (which makes them almost native), which they don't offer for Fuji. MFT happened to prove too heavy for my needs, because of the weight of quality zooms with shorter focals. I must say that the at some point I had seriously evaluated to switch to mixed brands: Sony for shorter focals, and Fuji for the 140-400mm. This would have further reduced the overall weight and I must say I really love the Fuji ergonomics. I discarded this solution because having a single brand introduces a number of advantages: same accessories such as battery and battery chargers, the fact that having two cameras of the same brand make them an emergency replacer for the other, etc... Summing up, my message to the OP: it really, really depends on a high number of details and subjective needs and you have to make some homework. And for some points, it can be impacted by the specific moment of history in which you switch, because two options can be so close in the evaluation that in the end the presence or absence of a favourite lens might be fundamental. The scenario might change in a couple of years, but you can't wait forever.

glenn_cummings1 · August 6, 2016

A sincere thank you to all for the detailed responses.

This will all help me to make an informed decision. Weight reduction is one of my main reasons for switching, however I need to be able to make quality prints up to 16x24 and that's the dilemma I face. EVF vs. OVF is also a concern as I have never used anything other than OVF's.

I like the look and feel of the Fuji XT1, reminds me of my original Nikon FM. I'm also considering the Olympus EM1 but am very concerned about Micro 4/3's format and the ability to print up to 16x24.

Again, thanks for everyone's input. I've got some serious research to do and decisions to make.

ShunCheung · August 6, 2016

Glenn, my niece had a destination wedding 10 years ago in January 2006, and my wife and I were drafted to shoot video and still at the wedding. At the time I had the 12MP Nikon D2X (APS-C format) and we made some large prints, like 24x16". I was pretty happy with the results back then. Fast forward 10 years, I am sure today's APS-C cameras are a lot better, not to mention full-35mm-frame. Meanwhile, her son is about to turn 9 later this month.

Since weight reduction is your main objective, as I mentioned earlier, I would first consider the single heaviest piece among your equipment. I assume your Canon 100-400mm is the latest version 2. That lens weights 1750 grams without the tripod collar, according to Canon's web site: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm

If your target is an APS-C system, the first question is how you are going to duplicate the capability of a 100-400mm zoom, in an APS-C system. To me, the most natural answer is some 70-300mm/f5.6 zoom, which unfortunately Fuji currently doesn't have. If you go with Fuji's 100-400mm, it is still a heavy 1375 grams and seems to defeat the whole purpose for getting lighter. Fuji also has a 50-230mm, but that is a consumer zoom and f6.7 on its long end. To me, that is just way too slow.

Do you have to get an equivalent of your current 100-400? If so, how are you going to achieve that in Fuji X? Are you willing to stick a 1.4x teleconverter on a zoom to get there? If you are unable to satisfactorily answer that question, I would forget about Fuji X altogether and start looking at Sony APS-C, Canon APS-C DSLRs or maybe even Nikon DX? Nikon does have a 300mm/f4 FP AF-S VR that is very compact and light if you must have a longer tele; however, it is not a zoom and is also pricey.

When your objective is to reduce weight, I would figure out how you are going to reduce weight on your heaviest lens. After that, the rest can fall in place fairly easily since every brand is going to have a mid-range zoom, wide zoom, and macro lenses.

Whether you like EVF or not is something you have to try yourself to determine. Personally I by far prefer OVF, but that is me. To me, having dual memory card is a must, but that is a feature which is only beginning to appear on this year's mirrorless cameras. I also prefer to go with mainstream brands instead of niche products that have a tiny market share; in mirrorless, that means Sony, followed by Micro 4/3. Using mainstream brands means it will be much easier to buy and sell in the used market, and it is unlikely that brand will pull out from that market. (Recall that Samsung has just exited from mirrorless, and there are speculations that Nikon may also pull the plug on its Nikon 1 one-inch mirrorless cameras. There has been no new Nikon 1 camera and lens for over a year.) But those are my preferences; you might not care about them at all.

P.S. Barry Fisher, your weight figure for the Nikon D7200 is totally off and that is why the weight difference makes no sense to you. The D7200 weights only 675 grams. I have one as well as a D500, and I know that the D7200 is considerably smaller and lighter. But that is all besides the point unless Glenn wants to consider Nikon also.

Uhooru · August 6, 2016

P.S. Barry Fisher, your weight figure for the Nikon D7200 is totally off and that is why the weight difference makes no sense to you.

</blockquote>

Yep, you are right, I looked at the source I used and didn't see that it included the kit lens. I thought that was a weird number.

However 1375 to 1750 g is a pretty good difference when you consider for the weight of the Nikon, you can have both 100-400 Fuji zoom and the 23mm f1.4 Fuji Prime. Again, fill the bag up with all the lenses then throw it on the scale. And then if you even want to consider the Nikon 2.8 "pro" zooms, it really becomes a big difference.

Allen Herbert · August 6, 2016

For Professional/Semi Professional photography, no second chances, Nikon/Canon rule.

Wayback I photographed a golf tournament with a D200 on a sunshine day which turned into weather from hell ,with continuous heavy downpour...I was waiting for the D200 to go pop with only a Sony A350 as a backup. Despite 4 hours in heavy rain it just kept on working, and was a still working when I took the evening photos of the presentations for the winners.

Much talk has been about the A7, and particularly their latest incantation the A7IIr which many consider as the best camera in the world. Its auto focus cannot keep up with even the mid-range Nikon/Canon cameras. It does not offer any particular weight advantages using quality lenses over Nikon/Canon cameras and it is not really a proven product...indeed, there have been issues with light leaks.

For amateur, maybe semiprofessional use, to my mind Fuji rules. For pure image quality, particularly skin tones, they are in a league of their own. I have the cheapest lenses from Fuji and continue to be impressed by the quality of the images...against any camera or lens. I bought into the Fuji system based on their light weight, as a backup system for travel, which to my mind is what Mirrorless is all about.<div></div>

Allen Herbert · August 6, 2016

<div>

00e5KW-564756984.jpg.9505dd43b696fce0a1472e704bc01f5b.jpg

</div>

stevenseelig · August 6, 2016

Switching camera systems is a costly endeavor and one can do all the calculations and theoritical considerations one can

think of AND still make the wrong decision. Once you have the lead candidate system, I would encourage you to rent it

and shoot with it aggressively for a few days to a week. You may find the paper considerations failed to reveal your real

needs/desires.

Not sure why you have rejected the Sony system. I have slowly moved from my NIKON D800 and the best Nikkor zoom

lenses to the Sony a7RII body with the following lenses: 28mm f2.0, 21mm converter, 55mm f1.8. I also use 70-200mm

f4.

I would not hesitate to print at 24x36 or even larger. And I love the size/weight and IQ that my Sony system gives me to

the point that I have not touched my NIKON system for quite some time.

I did not particularly like the a7R, but the a7RII is an excellent tool. But my point is decide and your top 1 or 2 systems

and then test drive them using rentals

aplumpton · August 7, 2016

Most 16 x 24 inch prints I have seen are mostly of static or slow moving subjects (landscapes, architecture, many nature subjects, still life, portraits, neighbourhood or event scenes where the small f stop is more important for DOF issues). Fast AF is not any great concern in those cases.

I have not tried the Fuji system and acknowledge that it might have good color balance, but I inherently prefer to put all the chances on my side for high quality large prints, by using mirrorless full frame, a high resolution sensor, and the better lenses available for it. Between the Sony A7RII and a Nikon D810 or the Canon flagship FF, I much prefer the lighter weight and size of the Sony, and whenever possible, its use with lightweight primes or modest speed zooms. One of my current exhibition prints is 20 x 30 inches and the FF system permits a high level of fine detail even at that size. If I photographed sports for living or hobby I would certainly not use it. The choice, apart for highest possible IQ, depends upon one's personal approach.

Sign In

Make the Switch?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in