eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p>Eric's endless advocacy for optical viewfinders</p> </blockquote> <p>identifying irony is not your strong suit, Edward. just a few comments ago you were noting my affinity for Fuji's mirrorless bodies. now you've moved on to accusing me of being a shill for OVFs. Yet if we are talking about infinite regurgitation of fanboyish marketing drivel ad nauseum, a certain Sony enthusiast comes to mind. It's not enough for you to oversaturate the Mirrorless forum with your pedantic, and often false, statements. Now you have to infect the Nikon forum with more completely-unsupported opinions, such as "Nikon barely competes" in image quality. if you're going to make those ridiculous claims, you should at least acknowledge when evidence to the contrary is presented. </p>

<p>the 12,800 shot looks pretty good. would be nice to see a further crop of the bird though, to see how much detail there is.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I thought the more focus points the body has the better chance she has of getting her photos in focus. Up to this point that's been her main objection with her older camera. She says she can't get good focused shots. But her digital camera is from 2005.</p> </blockquote> <p>Getting photos in focus really depends more on the photographer than the camera, in general. I could have an $8000 Canon 1ds or a $6500 Nikon D5, but if i didn't know how to set the camera for best results , and the technique necessary to obtain those results, i might as well be using a $100 point and shoot. Without knowing what specific camera your friend is using and seeing her shots and the EXIF data, it's hard to say what she's doing wrong, but there's a high likelihood of this problem being a technical limitation of the shooter, not necessarily a limitation of the camera itself. A lot of times, we think buying new cameras will improve our photographic abilities without us having to actually learn how to better use our equipment. Sadly, that is not the case. Even with a basic, entry-level camera, a photographer who learns that camera inside and out and masters the learning curve may get better results than someone who just buys an expensive piece of gear and expects the camera to do all the work. I should also add that in sports or action shooting, you really dont ever want to use the 'sports' scene mode where the camera is picking the settings for you. i never know what those modes are actually doing. You want to take as much control over the camera as possible, including shooting in full manual mode to control shutter and aperture. Sometimes i will use auto-ISO in variable lighting as well. </p>

<blockquote> <p>can you briefly explain why more focus points wont matter as much in sports photography? I mainly shoot products so never use my gear for sports really. Can you explain the difference between focus points vs. center-point AF and AF-C? I thought the more focus points the body has the better chance she has of getting her photos in focus.</p> </blockquote> <p>sure, i assume we're not talking about an experienced sports photographer here, i.e. someone who knows what they are doing, so just to be clear im not talking about sports photography in general, just your friend's experience level as a limiting factor. but to give you an example, i have a D300 with an auto-AF mode with 51 AF points. i never use that mode, because the camera doesnt always put the focus points where i would want it. instead i use a manually-selectable focus point and AF-C for tracking moving things. if your friend is comfortable moving around the focus point within the frame, then, sure, you can use that method. But at a basic skill level, sometimes simplifying things eliminates user error. The D5500 and A6000 both have advanced focus tracking features, but that won't help if you don't know how to use those features. Keeping the AF in center point should result in a decent hit rate even with a basic camera. Correctly using focus tracking is a little bit more complicated and sophisticated, and takes a bit of practice. The other thing is that the outer focus points tend not to be as accurate on many cameras, whereas the center AF point is usually a cross-type sensor. This obviously depends on the specific camera, but even with a 3-pt or 9-pt focus system, you can get keepers by keeping things simple and sticking to center-point AF. <br> <br> WRT to AF-C, that is continuous autofocus mode, where the camera's servo follows the subject you select around the frame. It's what you want to use for Things That Move (instead of focus and recompose and AF-S or single-shot AF). It allows you to shoot even without focus confirmation, as in a burst, prioritizing speed over accuracy. In single-shot AF, you can't fire the shutter until the focus locks. Sometimes that will be too slow for fast-moving action; by the time you obtain focus confirmation, the subject has already shifted its position, resulting in an unfocused shot. That's why you dont want to use AF-S for non-static subjects. In AF-C, you should get a focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder confirming focus, but you can still fire the camera without the lock-on and beep. Another trick for faster focus is using AF-On to separate focus acquisition from image capture, it saves a split second or so. Theoretically, in AF-C, the selectable focus should stay with the target as it moves through the frame.<br> <br> To summarize, having more focus points helps with getting in-focus shots around the frame, but only if your technique is such to where you correctly select the right focus point. In other words, having multiple focus points is only part of the equation. As i said before, the most accurate focus sensors on a DSLR are the cross-type ones. i have an 11-pt focus system on my D90, but only the center-pt AF sensor is cross-type, which means it registers horizontal and vertical information. in practice, when i shoot non-static subjects with that camera, i tend to stick to center-point AF because it's more accurate. Note that the A6000 might be a little different as it is a mirrorless camera and has hybrid AF, meaning the sensor uses phase detect and contrast detect AF systems together. DPReview says it works well for focus tracking, but i have no specific experience with that camera, so i cant tell you offhand how well that works in practice. </p> <blockquote> <p>I think the suggestion of the Nikon D5500 (or D5200 / D5300) with its kit lens makes a lot of sense</p> </blockquote> <p>My understanding is that the D5500 is a little bit better than the D5200/5300, particularly in terms of AF and focus tracking. Despite sharing the same sensor, these cameras are <em>not</em> interchangeable. The 5500 also has touchscreen focus while using the OVF, which could be useful.</p>

<p>sorry, Edward, but with all your comments about high-resolution mirrorless full frame cameras, i naturally assumed you were talking about Pentax. ;)</p>

<p>sorry, but im still wondering how a company with six of the top ten cameras tested for overall quality can be considered "barely competitive."</p>

<p>coincidentally, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-roundup-interchangeable-lens-cameras-500-800/13">DPReview just published a round-up of ILCs in that exact price range</a>. The best cameras in that lineup for sports would be the Nikon 5500 and Sony A6000, which each have above average AF tracking performance.</p>

<p>in that price range, i wouldnt expect much in the way of sports shooting specialness. you can get a new upper-entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR and a kit lens, maybe a two-lens kit (18-55+55-200). your best bet might be to look for an older model with a kit lens deal. The kit lenses might be okay for daytime soccer and baseball. for indoor basketball, kit lenses will be too slow, but fast zooms may be out of the price range. you could maybe get by with a 50/1.8 for lower-light but that may not get you close enough to the action, depending on court position. another option might be just getting a cheaper body-only camera, and buying an inexpensive fast zoom like the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. all that might be too complicated for a newbie, though. i also wouldnt worry too much about number of focus points at this level. just use center-point AF and AF-C.</p>

<blockquote> <p>the D810 is still excellent put against any other camera in its price class. <br /> Nikon is barely competitive even in that way.</p> </blockquote> <p>This seems to be a matter of subjective opinion. most people would argue the Nikon line is still quite competitive top to bottom, in terms of performance metrics as well as image quality. In fact, let's see what happens when we visit <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings">DXO Mark's camera ratings</a>, shall we? For overall score, here we find their top camera, the A7RII, beating the D810 by... exactly 1 point, with the Nikon ranking higher for "landscape." If that's "barely" competitive, I'm Annie Leibowitz. Going down the rest of the top ten, we find 4 Sony cameras and 6 Nikon cameras. That sounds a lot better than "barely competitive" to me. Just for kicks, we can see that the ancient D3x, introduced way back in 2008, outscores more recent bodies like the Leica Q, Canon 5DS, Leica M typ 240, Phase One P40, and Sony A7s and A7sII, while tieing the brand-new Leica SL. Not to belabor the point, but the notion that an eight-year old body can hold its own in 2016 is the very definition of competitiveness.</p> <blockquote> <p>The most significant improvements in the last two years have been in mirrorless cameras and especially lenses, similar to rangefinder lenses, designed to accommodate that configuration.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is also a subjective argument, and one extremely biased in favor of Sony. One could easily counter-argue that Phase One's 80mp digital medium format body represents a more significant development than a line of mirrorless full-frame bodies. Just as one could easily argue that Sony's biggest innovations isn't their lenses, but their proprietary technology, such as a back-illuminated sensor for faster data transmission, the 5-axis stabilization, and integrated 4k video. Where the Sonys tend to get dinged, though, is in sports performance, an area where many Nikons excel, including the just-released D500.</p> <blockquote> <p>I would like to see Nikon succeed. They have the resources, reputation and service organization nearly unmatched in the industry. Perhaps they need their cage rattled a bit.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> I dont want to turn this thread into another Nikon vs. Sony pissing contest, or a 'when will Nikon commit to a mirrorless line' thread, as both are way off-topic. But it's clearly premature to declare the superiority of mirrorless vs. DSLRs, at least as far as sales are concerned. DSLRs still outsell mirrorless by more than 2 to 1 worldwide, and Sony's overall sales are down, while profit margin is up -- a result of pushing fewer, but more expensive, products. To some extent, that marketing philosophy is shared throughout the industry, because basic compact sales lost to smart phones aren't coming back. That's probably the biggest factor driving market strategy, which explains the glut of mid-end products as well as the desired expansion into high-end enthusiast products.</p>

<p>hmm, tempting, although i already own the Sigma 35/1.4 ART.</p>

<blockquote> <p>personally, I don't purchase any lens with a bulbous front element that I can't use mount a protective filter on easily.</p> </blockquote> <p>idk, i have an older sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5 i got used for less than $200. it's got the bulbous front element, and of course, i dont use filters on it. but it's pretty wide, and pretty wide can be pretty awesome. i dont use it all the time, but i've gotten great shots with it. if i was mainly concerned about IQ/sharpness in a FF UWA, and/or wanted something for low-light, i would definitely check out the tamron 15-30. 2.8 just makes it more versatile than a f/4 or a f/3.5-4.5, and more suited for interiors/indoors shots, even though it appears to do best between 5.6 and f/8. for me personally, that would add to my photographic capabilities more than getting a slower lens that takes filters. if i was just concentrating on outdoor landscapes, im not sure i wouldnt just get the 18-35 and skip the 16-35 altogether. i think the OP kind of has a tougher decision because he's replacing a 2.8 DX lens, so anything less than 2.8 is gonna be slow, and some of the more landscape-oriented choices arent terrific wide open. also he wants to be able to use the new lens on DX. so, tamron 15-30, nikon 17-35, both of those can be performance lenses on DX and FX. anything slower, not so much, but possibly better for landscapes, depending. YMMV, as always.</p>

<p>another option i didnt mention which actually does work somewhat on both FX and DX is the 17-35/2.8. that's also a Gold Ring Nikkor, and a bit forgotten in this modern age, but it was a classic photojournalist lens before the 14-24's release. there are tons of them on the auction site, with prices ranging from $500-$1500+. might be worth looking into if you want to retain 2.8 and also be able to use filters. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/672-nikkorafs173528ff?start=1">Photozone </a>rates it as wicked sharp in the center with very good corners when stopped down at all focal lengths, as tested on a D3x.</p>

<p>i would agree with Wouter that a 17-55 on FX is an imperfect solution. would a 16-35 make sense on DX as well as FX? maybe. it's basically a 24-50/4 on APS-C, so you're losing quite a bit of range on the long end on DX, as well as giving back the stop of aperture you gain from FX. Honestly, wide-angle lenses aren't known for great bokeh, so i wouldnt expect much in this area. i think you need to think about this from a slightly different perspective, too, since the 17-55 is a performance-oriented standard zoom, and the 16-35 is more of a landscape-oriented FX wide-angle. In other words, they are two entirely different lenses, optimized for different purposes and (different sensor formats). So, very much apples and oranges.</p> <p>The problem with using hybrid formats concurrently is the lack of equivalence, which really comes into play with wide-angle lenses. An FX wide-angle is merely standard or normal on DX. With telephoto lenses, the 1.5x crop can be used to your advantage in terms of affording more reach, but it unfortunately doesn't work the other way around. If the 17-55 is your only lens, and you can only afford to swap it for another lens, you have a real dilemma. There's no lens you can buy which is really going to solve this issue for both formats without compromising in one way or the other. So, the question becomes, do you want to compromise DX or FX performance? It sounds to me like you are considering leaning more toward FX, which seems rational, as you are not currently getting all the benefit from that format by using a DX lens. </p> <p>If you really want to shoot wide on your FX body, a dedicated wide-angle lens makes sense. But is the 16-35 the best choice? Some say it's sharp, but one of the sharpest Nikkors ever? That seems like hyperbole. A more practical concern is that the 16-35 has a lot of distortion at the wide end, and that has been enough to scare some people off. Looking at the Photozone <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=1">review</a>, it seems to reach its best performance at 5.6-f/8, but the corner performance at 35mm leaves a lot to be desired. To be fair, similar performance can be expected from a lot of wide-angle lenses. The Tamron 15-30 OTOH is worth considering if: you find 2.8 and stabilization useful, but with the caveat that it doesnt accept filters, a potential dealbreaker for landscape use, where polarizers and ND filters often come with the territory.</p> <p>Looking over the other options, 24-85+20/1.8 would be a little pricier than just a 16-35 or 15-30 on its own. 20mm is useful on both DX and FX, but isn't exactly ultrawide, and you'd have to use that focal length a lot to make it worthwhile to purchase over the two UWA zooms. 24-85 is competent for landscape use on FX, but not terribly exciting. it would be even less exciting on DX, compared to the 17-55, as you give up both wideness and aperture. The 18-35 is kind of a sleeper, as its performance is actually quite good, especially stopped down. You give up some reach on the long end and VR compared to the 16-35 and the same as well as the loss of constant 2.8 compared to the 15-30. So, again, we have a competent but not terribly exciting FX wide angle. You'd save a few hundred dollars over the 16-35 and 15-30, but IMO the 18-35 isn't exactly bargain-priced.</p> <p>If it were me, i'd probably jump on the 15-30 unless... you use filters for outdoor work, in which case, one of the other options would be better. I'd also consider looking into a sigma 17-50/2.8 OS for the DX body, which gives the same IQ as a 17-55 at lighter weight and cost, with the benefit of stabilization. But if it's not clear by now, there's simply no perfect solution for your quandry. You can either optimize for FX or DX, but not both. Or you can compromise somewhat, and learn to live with it. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p> I don't have any interest in acquiring anything more than a D3X, which for me will in all likelihood will be my end game DSLR.</p> </blockquote> <p>well, i suppose if you've made it all this way with a D2H, a D3x would be a fairly significant upgrade. But unless you really really want a big-body full-frame DSLR, a D3x seems a little obsoleted at this point. Its main claim to fame was boasting the highest resolution of any DSLR, but that mark has been long eclipsed by newer bodies. in retrospect, the D3x's retail price of $8000 USD seems rather exorbitant, though at the time, perhaps justifiable by commercial and fashion photographers. It's nostalgic to read this 2009 D3x <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-d3x/">review</a> from Luminous Landscape, which points out that the main difference between a D3 and D3x was 12mp and $4000; nowadays, you can get a Nikon 24mp FF sensor body for as low as $1000, or 1/8th the cost of a D3x at full retail. if you do want a D3x, i'd get it sooner rather than later, as they are not getting any younger. Honestly, for my money, spending $2100 on a used D3x (as per B&H) makes less sense to me than spending that same amount (or less) and getting a D750 + 24-120/4 kit, or spending 1/2 as much and getting a D610.<br> <br> The idea of an "end game DSLR" doesnt completely hold water to me, either, since technology doesn't stand still. i remember when i got a D300 and thought at the time it was all the camera I'd ever want. After using it for a couple years, I scooped up a D3s for the better low-light performance. Now that camera is starting to feel old and a little underpowered in terms of resolution. I may just replace the shutter when it finally dies, but it's also likely i would buy a newer model. I don't necessarily need the weight and bulk of a big body DSLR, though it does balance well with heavier lenses, but things like more AF coverage and better AF-C performance would be appealing, as well as more room for cropping. </p> <blockquote> <p>the top end products like D5 are really designed for pros who probably wear out a camera much faster than amateurs like me. Such folks are NOT going to replace a dead D3s in 2016 with a used D3s, they are probably going to the D5.</p> </blockquote> <p>Nikon full-frame has basically followed two or three divergent paths. Essentially, the D3x begat the D8XX series, which concentrated on resolution. The D3 led to the D3s, D4/D4s, and now D5, a more performance-attenuated model with a modest megapixel count and speed enhancements. The third path is consumer full-frame, with entry-level (D6xx) and mid-range (D7xx) models. I dont see anything wrong with getting one of those if all you want to do is use legacy lenses at native focal lengths and have reasonably-high resolution, although one might have to overlook the ignominy of included scene and auto modes.</p>

<blockquote> <p>you can't say something is diffraction limited, sensor limited or lens limited further information</p> </blockquote> <p>actually, you can. thanks for the lengthy, entirely unasked-for explanations (and the nifty graph!), but you are basically refuting the findings of professional lens testers like Photozone.</p> <p>why? i'm not sure, but i would take their word for it than Sony 24mp sensors are diffraction-limited past f/11, and that <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/965-zeiss55f18?start=1">diffraction impacts can degrade image quality on Sony 42mp sensors</a> from f/8 onward, over yours. This isn't inconsistent with similar findings from other professional lens/camera testers, btw, and happens to be a reality of the digital camera era. This is more of a general rule of thumb, however, than a hard and fast limit, since the diffraction threshold may differ with different lens/body combos. For example, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/974-sony90f28macro?start=1">photozone's test of the Sony 90mm macro </a>found diffraction impacts on a 42mp body dont start until f/11, not f/8, but still, they caution, "<em>Diffraction effects have a higer impact from about f/11. The quality is still good at f/16 whereas f/22 should be avoided for obvious reasons</em>." That's good to know, because a macro shooter might be inclined to stop down to f/22. Also, these results aren't limited to just Sony bodies; in their <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/817-nikkorafs10528vrfx?start=1">review</a> of the 105/2.8 VR on a Nikon D3x (24mp), photozone says, "<em>From f/11 onwards, diffraction starts to take its toll and reduces the achievable resolution. The lens can be stopped down to f/32, but at this setting not much resolution is left. This is a physical limitation and not a design flaw of the lens</em>."<br> <br> The obvious implication here is that macro shooters who need super deep DoF can either take a resolution hit, or eschew high-resolution bodies altogether. this also has implications for ultra-high res bodies, like the 100mp Phase One sensor.</p>

<blockquote> <p> there isn't that much of a difference between the three cameras other than pixel count going up and a few other things</p> </blockquote> <p>'a few other things' include an all-new AF system and 4k video. for sports/action shooters, AF is one of the most prioritized things, so this is a pretty big deal. also the D4 has much better low-light performance than the D3, and the D5 has better low-light performance than the D4. </p> <blockquote> <p>If you're interested, it's; D5-COMPARE-31-1/16 15-355</p> </blockquote> <p>what is this? it's not an active link, and plugging it into a URL does nothing.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I saw the headlines for the Pentax but didn't read the release</p> </blockquote> <p>regardless, it's still not a mirrorless full-frame camera.</p>

<p>Fyi, the Pentax K-1 has a pentaprism OVF, so technically, it's <em>not</em> a mirrorless full-frame camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I hope they didn't just put an E mount on the existing 12mm f5.6 lens. </p> </blockquote> <p>looks like that's exactly what they did. from DPReview: "<em>Both the 12mm and 15mm (pictured above) versions are presently available with Voigtländer’s VM-mount; the 10mm lens is an entirely new product.</em>" I am of the mind to welcome more ultra-wide lenses into the world, but these three new FE lenses, plus the Samyang 14 and Batis 18, also for FE, don't exactly solve the lens situation for the Nex/E-mount bodies. </p> <blockquote> <p>The A6300 has a lot going for it, but without IBIS, camera shake limits its resolution at any shutter speed slower than 1/4f (2 stops), and diffraction below f/22.</p> </blockquote> <p>you'll hit the diffraction threshold well before f/22 on 24mp APS-C. Photozone doesnt even test below f/11; as they say in many of their Sony reviews: <em>"Diffraction has a limiting effect on image quality starting at f/11 at all focal lengths."</em></p>

<p>i dont think the issue so much is lack of sharpness, contradicting anecdotes aside, but whether the 135, a portrait lens optimized for headshots, is sharp at long distances. my gut tells me no, although it might be a good choice for cactus portraits with OOF backgrounds at closer ranges, notwithstanding CA.</p>

<blockquote> <p>unwilling to sacrifice the quality of his D800E</p> </blockquote> <p> what the OP <em>actually</em> said was, "<em>Which brand has the best lens options, image quality and convenience of features to substitute for the D800E.</em>" in the end, he decided he didnt have enough time to learn a new system, but he was willing enough to pose a question here and go to a camera store to try things out.</p> <blockquote> <p>Which lenses are missing?</p> </blockquote> <p>here we go again. it's not so much that so many are missing (although there's nothing in native E mount faster than 1.8, and the native primes are basic), it's moreso that the ones there are fail to excite. the 16-50 kit zoom gets pretty bad reviews. then there's the pricey but imperfect 16-70/4. and the 18-105/4 "power zoom" -- a P&S feature. i guess you could get the basic 18-55 or the 18-200 superzoom, but Sony A6xxx series owners i know actually have said good things about the sigma primes, so there's that. i think the Sony A6xxx series had a little bit more appeal back when Fuji only had 16mp bodies but that's less the case from an IQ standpoint now, especially because Fuji does have fast primes, portrait lenses, 2.8 zooms, etc. that said, there are other reasons to get an A6XXX other than absolute IQ, and the people i know who have them like them for the size/convenience factor and fast AF, so i wouldnt rule that out as a travel camera, i just probably wouldnt invest heavily into an E-mount system at this point.</p>

<p>the problem here is that for event/photojournalism, you actually need <em>two</em> 2.8 zooms: 17-50 and 70-200. not sure if you can get both for $1500, but just getting the 70-200, which i would do first, still leaves you with a slow kit lens at the wide end. one lens for every situation just doesnt exist. a 70-200 gives you some flexibility if you can move around, but in tight spaces and indoors it may be too long.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Not the best range of native lenses but the best IQ body in that size.</p> </blockquote> <p>that seems to be the consensus with Sony E-mount: <em>if you can live with the lenses...</em> and for a lot of casual to semi-serious photography, i'm sure one could manage. also a solid choice for video shooters. but with Fuji now going to the 24mp sensor, and with their already-existing lens lineup, they are gonna be hard to hold back in the APS-C sensor category.</p> <blockquote> <p>Next I would choose a GX-8 or the next OMD EM5 . Both solid performers with a great lens range and real weight advantages.</p> </blockquote> <p>the problem i have with m4/3 is that once you get past the kit lenses, you're paying as much for the really good lenses as for some DSLR lenses, with a built-in IQ limitation at higher ISO levels. we may never see a m4/3 camera at 24mp due to diffraction levels, and where the 2x crop factor is most useful, in longer telephoto lenses, goes against the compact ethos of mirrorless "modern rangefinder" to some degree. that said, the 35-100 does have weight savings over a DSLR 70-200, and is field-carryable, not to mention affordable with the current rebate price. so, yes, you can realize some weight/size savings with m4/3, but at the cost of low-light performance. i actually thought the LX100 made for a nice travel camera, would be interesting to see the next-gen model.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm taking a lot of heat for that "20 pound" camera bag.</p> </blockquote> <p>no one ever said you couldnt have a heavy bag, just that it was kind of quaint and archaic, and not exactly appropriate for light travel use. if you want to go out into the field with two daguerreotypes mounted on horse-drawn carriages, we won't stop you.</p>

<blockquote> <p>High image quality at 1000 ISO and more is now. How often does one need f2.8 on a zoom?</p> </blockquote> <p>for low-light photography, ISOs can easily veer up to 3200 or 6400. That used to mean full-frame territory; However the latest APS-C bodies can mostly handle that, and some of the 1" sensor cameras are as good as DSLRs of 7-8 years ago, i.e. usable ISO 1600. Whether one needs 2.8 for travel photography is pretty subjective, especially if you also have fast prime options. if you are mainly shooting in good light, f/4 or even 5.6 should be workable. (However, this can be tricky, since shooting urban cities, you might encounter shadows even at high noon.) Since we are talking about mirrorless cameras and travel, i'll posit that the ethos of mirrorless shouldnt be about exactly replicating a DSLR system, but providing a lighter/smaller alternative with most of the same functionality, and hopefully some added benefits. As stated earlier, i can fit 2 bodies and 4-5 lenses into a small waistbag kit weighing less than 5 lbs. total. That might not give me the exact same functionality as a professional working kit, but that kit does maybe 80% of what a much heavier and larger kit can do.</p>