Lighter weight alternatives?
Discussion
After some advice on a possible change of kit. My current main kit includes D300, D40 and D3100 plus various lenses. I also have 2 panasonic bridge cameras, Canon G9 and my most used camera at the moment, S95. However, the Nikon bodies are getting too heavy for me as I have a degenerative bone problem which is getting very quickly worse and I'm struggling with the weight of the bodies/lenses. D40/D3100 are still just about manageable but only if I use my lightweight 55-200mm lens (which isn't the best!)
Main areas of interest are landscape (which the S95/G9 are fine for). My other interests include motorsport and wildlife photography which is where I'm struggling (long lenses = weight).
I find the bridge cameras too restrictive in terms of twiddling the little dial to zoom in and out and the shutter lag and slow focusing do my head in! I don't want to use a monopod/tripod and I can't bear a lot of weight hanging around my neck.
What alternatives are out there? Would the 4/3 range be a viable alternative?
Any other recommendations?
Thanks for any help as I'm getting very frustrated!
Main areas of interest are landscape (which the S95/G9 are fine for). My other interests include motorsport and wildlife photography which is where I'm struggling (long lenses = weight).
I find the bridge cameras too restrictive in terms of twiddling the little dial to zoom in and out and the shutter lag and slow focusing do my head in! I don't want to use a monopod/tripod and I can't bear a lot of weight hanging around my neck.
What alternatives are out there? Would the 4/3 range be a viable alternative?
Any other recommendations?
Thanks for any help as I'm getting very frustrated!
CarMac said:
What alternatives are out there? Would the 4/3 range be a viable alternative?
If you mean Micro 4/3rds I'm afraid not; although with the arrival of the Olympus OMD image quality has come of age, its Contrast Detect (tracking) autofocus would be not up to your needs for motorsport and (fast moving?) wildlife photography.
CarMac said:
Hadn't considered those. May have to go and have a play in my local camera shop. New system so range of lenses might be restrictive? Thanks for the suggestion.
You can get an adapter to use your DSLR lenses. If you look on Dpreview they seem to use them a lot for the type of stuff you do.CarMac said:
Ta. Will do some reading. It looks like the Nikon 1 either comes with viewfinder but no flash or flash but no viewfinder. Hmm.
Yeah, its an odd beast for general photography I'd go with a Nex 7 every time but as you have a generalist camera this may work. You can get an add on flash for the V1 but it's model specific with no hotshoe adapter available.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/...
The potential for finding a relatively lightweight body is quite good but I fear you are stuck with the lenses. Whilst you can get adapters to use 'normal' lenses of just about any sort on many of the compact interchangeable lens systems, making them look rather attractive propositions, the end reult will mean you still have heavy lenses if you go that way. Unless you do without any form of AF in the lens and choose the lightest lenses you can find. However that would also suggest the lenses will be 'slow' since 'fast' means large glass (relatively). OK for landscapes, not so good for anything else. Although micro4/3 specific lenses are smaller and lighter than larger formats they also suffer from the lask of physical aperture for light to pass through and so tend to be 'slow'. This does not help the focusing.
Back last summer the latest M 4/3 systems from Olympus claimed very fast focus and with a long haul holiday approaching I was tempted by the format. However after a bit of digging I realised that the investment I envisaged would be quite high (albeit the plan was to sell on some of the kit after the holiday) and that it didn't really look like I would get anything to effectively replace my existing second body kit for action stuff. So I bought a refurb S90 and a G11 instead!
I suspect that things may have moved on a little and that there will be more to come from the smaller and lighter formats but what and when are the big questions. In addition, other than the speed of focus issue, it may be that the options to use higher ISOs with smaller sensors improve things to allow work around for the 'slower' lenses without increasing their size. Not much help if DoF control is your objective but it might work for motor sport action shots.
Meanwhile have you considered different ways to carry the lighter options of your current bodies and lenses?
There are 'harness' type carry devices available that spread the load and take the neck pretty much out of play. You probably know that already. There are also other devices, often aimed at videographers, that offer DSLR type camera support based on a shoulder mounted device and a strap system. I also seem to recall one that has a way of providing a sort of short monopod like support to a belt pouch. A bit lake a flag carrier in a Military parade.
Now it is possible that none of these ideas works for you and your particular requirements but they may well be worth investigating anyway to see what ideas they throw up along the way.
Back last summer the latest M 4/3 systems from Olympus claimed very fast focus and with a long haul holiday approaching I was tempted by the format. However after a bit of digging I realised that the investment I envisaged would be quite high (albeit the plan was to sell on some of the kit after the holiday) and that it didn't really look like I would get anything to effectively replace my existing second body kit for action stuff. So I bought a refurb S90 and a G11 instead!
I suspect that things may have moved on a little and that there will be more to come from the smaller and lighter formats but what and when are the big questions. In addition, other than the speed of focus issue, it may be that the options to use higher ISOs with smaller sensors improve things to allow work around for the 'slower' lenses without increasing their size. Not much help if DoF control is your objective but it might work for motor sport action shots.
Meanwhile have you considered different ways to carry the lighter options of your current bodies and lenses?
There are 'harness' type carry devices available that spread the load and take the neck pretty much out of play. You probably know that already. There are also other devices, often aimed at videographers, that offer DSLR type camera support based on a shoulder mounted device and a strap system. I also seem to recall one that has a way of providing a sort of short monopod like support to a belt pouch. A bit lake a flag carrier in a Military parade.
Now it is possible that none of these ideas works for you and your particular requirements but they may well be worth investigating anyway to see what ideas they throw up along the way.
LongQ said:
Whilst you can get adapters to use 'normal' lenses of just about any sort on many of the compact interchangeable lens systems, making them look rather attractive propositions, the end reult will mean you still have heavy lenses if you go that way. Unless you do without any form of AF in the lens and choose the lightest lenses you can find. However that would also suggest the lenses will be 'slow' since 'fast' means large glass (relatively). OK for landscapes, not so good for anything else. Although micro4/3 specific lenses are smaller and lighter than larger formats they also suffer from the lask of physical aperture for light to pass through and so tend to be 'slow'. This does not help the focusing.
Although in general I'd agree, you have to remember the crop factor and it's effect on focal length equivalence. For example a D300 with battery and card etc weighs 932.2g an 80 - 400mm VR with a max aperture of F5.6 at the far end weighs 1,340 g and give you the equivalent of an 120mm to 600mm zoom on a DX camera. The V1 weighs 294 g and an 18-200mm VR weighs 565g and the adapter 150 g giving you a 48mm - 540mm equivalent zoom, still with a max aperture of f5.6 and 1.2kg lighter than the DSLR. Not by any means an ideal camera setup in general but quite light and should have reasonably fast AF.Edited by coxyuk on Wednesday 6th June 07:31
coxyuk said:
LongQ said:
Whilst you can get adapters to use 'normal' lenses of just about any sort on many of the compact interchangeable lens systems, making them look rather attractive propositions, the end reult will mean you still have heavy lenses if you go that way. Unless you do without any form of AF in the lens and choose the lightest lenses you can find. However that would also suggest the lenses will be 'slow' since 'fast' means large glass (relatively). OK for landscapes, not so good for anything else. Although micro4/3 specific lenses are smaller and lighter than larger formats they also suffer from the lask of physical aperture for light to pass through and so tend to be 'slow'. This does not help the focusing.
Although in general I'd agree, you have to remember the crop factor and it's effect on focal length equivalence. For example a D300 with battery and card etc weighs 932.2g an 80 - 400mm VR with a max aperture of F5.6 at the far end weighs 1,340 g and give you the equivalent of an 120mm to 600mm zoom on a DX camera. The V1 weighs 294 g and an 18-200mm VR weighs 565g and the adapter 150 g giving you a 48mm - 540mm equivalent zoom, still with a max aperture of f5.6 and 1.2kg lighter than the DSLR. Not by any means an ideal camera setup in general but quite light and should have reasonably fast AF.Edited by coxyuk on Wednesday 6th June 07:31
I've not used a J1/V1 but a lot of people seem to be using them for birding for that enormous crop factor. They are definitely worth a look.
Gad-Westy said:
coxyuk said:
LongQ said:
Whilst you can get adapters to use 'normal' lenses of just about any sort on many of the compact interchangeable lens systems, making them look rather attractive propositions, the end reult will mean you still have heavy lenses if you go that way. Unless you do without any form of AF in the lens and choose the lightest lenses you can find. However that would also suggest the lenses will be 'slow' since 'fast' means large glass (relatively). OK for landscapes, not so good for anything else. Although micro4/3 specific lenses are smaller and lighter than larger formats they also suffer from the lask of physical aperture for light to pass through and so tend to be 'slow'. This does not help the focusing.
Although in general I'd agree, you have to remember the crop factor and it's effect on focal length equivalence. For example a D300 with battery and card etc weighs 932.2g an 80 - 400mm VR with a max aperture of F5.6 at the far end weighs 1,340 g and give you the equivalent of an 120mm to 600mm zoom on a DX camera. The V1 weighs 294 g and an 18-200mm VR weighs 565g and the adapter 150 g giving you a 48mm - 540mm equivalent zoom, still with a max aperture of f5.6 and 1.2kg lighter than the DSLR. Not by any means an ideal camera setup in general but quite light and should have reasonably fast AF.Edited by coxyuk on Wednesday 6th June 07:31
I've not used a J1/V1 but a lot of people seem to be using them for birding for that enormous crop factor. They are definitely worth a look.
Yep I appreciate that but as Carmac mentioned previously the use of 'lighter' lenses already owned I was discounting any potential for using the heavyweight stuff anyway. To put is another way I was assuming that the requirement is, if possible, to go lighter and smaller than even the 18-200 weight range.
It still leaves questions about anything much faster than f5.6 at the long zoom and whether that is OK for focus performance and creative use of DoF, etc., etc. Of course there may be no good options available in that respect. Indeed it may not matter too much - only Carmac would be able to make the call on that one.
Gad-westy
Interesting observations re. the J1/V1.
Don't know much about it but I would assume that not all birders are seeking something more than just a record of their sightings. "Here's a rare bird I saw" rather than "Wow, fantastic shot. Would love that hanging on my wall." Certainly worth checking out though.
LongQ said:
coxyuk
Yep I appreciate that but as Carmac mentioned previously the use of 'lighter' lenses already owned I was discounting any potential for using the heavyweight stuff anyway. To put is another way I was assuming that the requirement is, if possible, to go lighter and smaller than even the 18-200 weight range.
It still leaves questions about anything much faster than f5.6 at the long zoom and whether that is OK for focus performance and creative use of DoF, etc., etc. Of course there may be no good options available in that respect. Indeed it may not matter too much - only Carmac would be able to make the call on that one.
Gad-westy
Interesting observations re. the J1/V1.
Don't know much about it but I would assume that not all birders are seeking something more than just a record of their sightings. "Here's a rare bird I saw" rather than "Wow, fantastic shot. Would love that hanging on my wall." Certainly worth checking out though.
Have a read of this for some inspiration. Yep I appreciate that but as Carmac mentioned previously the use of 'lighter' lenses already owned I was discounting any potential for using the heavyweight stuff anyway. To put is another way I was assuming that the requirement is, if possible, to go lighter and smaller than even the 18-200 weight range.
It still leaves questions about anything much faster than f5.6 at the long zoom and whether that is OK for focus performance and creative use of DoF, etc., etc. Of course there may be no good options available in that respect. Indeed it may not matter too much - only Carmac would be able to make the call on that one.
Gad-westy
Interesting observations re. the J1/V1.
Don't know much about it but I would assume that not all birders are seeking something more than just a record of their sightings. "Here's a rare bird I saw" rather than "Wow, fantastic shot. Would love that hanging on my wall." Certainly worth checking out though.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread...
Gad-Westy said:
Interesting.So can I get an adapter to take Canon FD mount lenses? That would then give me the option of using my 600mm f4.5 as an effective 1620mm f4.5. Or add the 2x extender .... and make it impossible to find the subject!
Sorry Carmac, drifting off topic here. The 600mm is certainly going the wrong way on size and weight ...
LongQ said:
Gad-Westy said:
Interesting.So can I get an adapter to take Canon FD mount lenses? That would then give me the option of using my 600mm f4.5 as an effective 1620mm f4.5. Or add the 2x extender .... and make it impossible to find the subject!
Sorry Carmac, drifting off topic here. The 600mm is certainly going the wrong way on size and weight ...
The V1/J1 seems to have had a little criticism as compact 'do everything' camera but for tele photo stuff it seems very well regarded.
I believe the video function is meant to be good too.
Gad-Westy said:
LongQ said:
Gad-Westy said:
Interesting.So can I get an adapter to take Canon FD mount lenses? That would then give me the option of using my 600mm f4.5 as an effective 1620mm f4.5. Or add the 2x extender .... and make it impossible to find the subject!
Sorry Carmac, drifting off topic here. The 600mm is certainly going the wrong way on size and weight ...
The V1/J1 seems to have had a little criticism as compact 'do everything' camera but for tele photo stuff it seems very well regarded.
I believe the video function is meant to be good too.
A 50mm f1.4 could give a 135mm (equiv) f1.4. Interesting potential.
The adapter I have for the 600 provides some form of focus assist. However even if a lens adapter for the 1 series offered the same for manual (Canon) lenses it appears that the focus assist system may not be great according to Thom Hogan (see comments towards the end of the list of comments).
Most kind CarMac ...
One of the interesting things that seems to be happening at the moment is a burst of technology that seems to have been quite market shaking. This after a few years of relative stagnation (if you exclude the video with everything releases). There also seems to be a divergence of design philosophy.
There is an entire book to be edited togeher somewhere in all of this but I'm not totally convinced that I would feel good about using a compact body, no viewfinder, with a relatively 'long' lens trying to see what I was taking on the screen in bright sunlight. And attempting to hold it still at arm's length.
On a tripod with a screen shade shooting a landscape .... maybe. Or with the output feed from live view run out to a tablet with a bright screen (or a phone at a pinch - LG Optimus Black has a very bright screen when needed) things might work OK. But but the time yo have all that kit weight saved is creeping back on, there are complication of interfaces and more potential points of failure and yet more electrical devices to be charged.
My original DLSR was a Canon 400D - I still us it for some things and as a backup or when travelling light and by air. However the extra mass of my Canon 1D3 (or something like a Canon 7D plus battery grip) as the equivalent Nikon's Sony's whatever, actually suits a 'big' lens and once used to the weight I don't notice it. At some point, as in your case, that is likely to change.
Right now the smaller interchangeable lens systems are an obvious way to go but only, for me, if they have a viewfinder. By all accoounts the viewfinders are generally not yet that great especially for action stuff - but are improving.
The option to use older lens, likely lighter if thaey donlt have some of the fancy AF and VR.IS type gubbins is attractive BUT not if the entire kit is so light that it becomes prone to poor results with every tiny movement. So maybe in body VR/IS/whatever it is called by a particular manufacturer becomes a deal winner when 'long' effective focal lengths are part of the mix? I can't remember from my original reading which manufacturers settled on which route for that.
It's nearly a year since I did most of the reading. Things have moved on. It may be time look into it again although this time around it would be purely for interest as I don't have a need at all.
One of the interesting things that seems to be happening at the moment is a burst of technology that seems to have been quite market shaking. This after a few years of relative stagnation (if you exclude the video with everything releases). There also seems to be a divergence of design philosophy.
There is an entire book to be edited togeher somewhere in all of this but I'm not totally convinced that I would feel good about using a compact body, no viewfinder, with a relatively 'long' lens trying to see what I was taking on the screen in bright sunlight. And attempting to hold it still at arm's length.
On a tripod with a screen shade shooting a landscape .... maybe. Or with the output feed from live view run out to a tablet with a bright screen (or a phone at a pinch - LG Optimus Black has a very bright screen when needed) things might work OK. But but the time yo have all that kit weight saved is creeping back on, there are complication of interfaces and more potential points of failure and yet more electrical devices to be charged.
My original DLSR was a Canon 400D - I still us it for some things and as a backup or when travelling light and by air. However the extra mass of my Canon 1D3 (or something like a Canon 7D plus battery grip) as the equivalent Nikon's Sony's whatever, actually suits a 'big' lens and once used to the weight I don't notice it. At some point, as in your case, that is likely to change.
Right now the smaller interchangeable lens systems are an obvious way to go but only, for me, if they have a viewfinder. By all accoounts the viewfinders are generally not yet that great especially for action stuff - but are improving.
The option to use older lens, likely lighter if thaey donlt have some of the fancy AF and VR.IS type gubbins is attractive BUT not if the entire kit is so light that it becomes prone to poor results with every tiny movement. So maybe in body VR/IS/whatever it is called by a particular manufacturer becomes a deal winner when 'long' effective focal lengths are part of the mix? I can't remember from my original reading which manufacturers settled on which route for that.
It's nearly a year since I did most of the reading. Things have moved on. It may be time look into it again although this time around it would be purely for interest as I don't have a need at all.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff